From 5f265d4af62fd7fd0cf7ba159fcd8547a8a68db4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: guangxush Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:19:03 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] train --- adaptive_learning.py | 10 +- data/err_data/imdb_1.data | 450 -------- data/err_data/imdb_2.data | 450 -------- data/err_data/imdb_3.data | 488 +------- data/err_data/imdb_4.data | 500 +-------- data/err_data/imdb_5.data | 505 +-------- data/err_data/imdb_6.data | 474 +------- data/err_data/imdb_7.data | 466 +------- data/err_data/imdb_8.data | 469 +------- data/err_data/imdb_9.data | 496 +------- data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv | 902 +-------------- data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv | 952 +--------------- data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv | 982 +--------------- data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv | 1022 +---------------- data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv | 1020 +---------------- data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv | 1014 +---------------- data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv | 1040 ++--------------- data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv | 1058 ++--------------- data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv | 1066 ++---------------- data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv | 916 +-------------- data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv | 956 +--------------- data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv | 986 +--------------- data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv | 1008 +---------------- data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv | 1014 +---------------- data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv | 1014 +---------------- data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv | 1036 ++--------------- data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv | 1050 ++--------------- data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv | 1068 ++---------------- data/part_data_all/test_0.txt | 900 --------------- data/part_data_all/test_1.txt | 1100 ++---------------- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log | 200 ++-- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log | 12 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log | 59 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log | 28 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log | 17 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log | 105 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log | 62 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log | 82 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log | 71 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log | 151 +-- make_predict.py | 357 ------ model/config.py | 371 ------ model/layers.py | 290 ----- model/models.py | 1375 ----------------------- model/utils.py | 216 ---- model_use.py | 6 +- result/test_classify_result_154493.txt | 63 ++ result/train_classify_result_154493.txt | 63 ++ sentiment_analysis.py | 163 --- util/data_load.py | 136 +-- util/data_process.py | 650 +---------- util/rawdata_process.py | 170 +-- util/tag_train_data.py | 109 -- util/train_word2vec.py | 59 - 54 files changed, 1879 insertions(+), 27348 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 make_predict.py delete mode 100644 model/config.py delete mode 100644 model/layers.py delete mode 100644 model/models.py delete mode 100644 model/utils.py create mode 100644 result/test_classify_result_154493.txt create mode 100644 result/train_classify_result_154493.txt delete mode 100644 sentiment_analysis.py delete mode 100644 util/tag_train_data.py delete mode 100644 util/train_word2vec.py diff --git a/adaptive_learning.py b/adaptive_learning.py index 6305add..f7bb8a3 100644 --- a/adaptive_learning.py +++ b/adaptive_learning.py @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ from util.data_load import make_err_dataset from util import data_process from model.model2 import mlp2 -from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data2 +from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data from util.util import cal_err_ratio import numpy as np from model_use import model_use @@ -21,8 +21,6 @@ def model1(i): model2_file = './modfile/model2file/imdb.mlp.best_model.h5' result_file = './data/err_data/imdb_'+str(i)+'.data' data2_path = './data/model2_data/imdb_'+str(i)+'_data.csv' - # pos_file = "./data/part_data/train_pos_" + str(i) + ".txt" - # neg_file = "./data/part_data/train_neg_" + str(i) + ".txt" train_file = "./data/part_data_all/train_" + str(i) + ".txt" # train model1 monitor = 'val_acc' @@ -31,7 +29,7 @@ def model1(i): save_best_only=True, save_weights_only=True) early_stopping = EarlyStopping(patience=5) csv_logger = CSVLogger('logs/imdb_model2_mlp_' + str(i) + '.log') - Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = data_process.get_imdb_part_data2(raw_file=train_file) + Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = data_process.get_imdb_part_data(raw_file=train_file) model = lstm_mul_model() model.fit(Xtrain, ytrain, batch_size=32, epochs=50, validation_data=(Xtest, ytest), verbose=1, shuffle=True, callbacks=[check_pointer, early_stopping, csv_logger]) @@ -42,7 +40,7 @@ def model1(i): # test_pos_file = './data/part_data/test_pos_0.txt' # test_neg_file = './data/part_data/test_neg_0.txt' test_file = './data/part_data_all/test_0.txt' - generate_imdb_model2_data2(model_file=model_file, result_path=result_path, test_file=test_file, count=10) + generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file=model_file, result_path=result_path, test_file=test_file, count=10) print('Load result ...') X_test, Y_test = load_data3(data_path=data2_path) @@ -94,7 +92,7 @@ def model2(i): if __name__ == '__main__': model2(0) - for i in range(1, 10): + for i in range(1, 11): print('***** ' + str(i) + ' START! *****') model1(i) model2(i) diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_1.data b/data/err_data/imdb_1.data index c2c9565..19ecd19 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_1.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_1.data @@ -2,500 +2,50 @@ 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_2.data b/data/err_data/imdb_2.data index 702af75..a6b0883 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_2.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_2.data @@ -1,501 +1,51 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_3.data b/data/err_data/imdb_3.data index a0640c6..7e8c8f5 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_3.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_3.data @@ -1,501 +1,49 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_4.data b/data/err_data/imdb_4.data index 6593d39..ba6b725 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_4.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_4.data @@ -1,490 +1,48 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_5.data b/data/err_data/imdb_5.data index ad29f2f..631c8e1 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_5.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_5.data @@ -1,499 +1,50 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_6.data b/data/err_data/imdb_6.data index 48466bc..bb174f6 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_6.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_6.data @@ -1,455 +1,43 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_7.data b/data/err_data/imdb_7.data index b00c9c4..22e8468 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_7.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_7.data @@ -1,451 +1,37 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_8.data b/data/err_data/imdb_8.data index c82e141..080ccf7 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_8.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_8.data @@ -1,455 +1,32 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_9.data b/data/err_data/imdb_9.data index bf442ca..3cf1a30 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_9.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_9.data @@ -1,482 +1,30 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv index 8fa0bab..8020ab2 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv @@ -1,25 +1,7 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -28,256 +10,70 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -289,713 +85,17 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv index e02398c..3e6ab1c 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv index 67445ea..05f1243 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv index 5749726..e52c107 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv index c17b26f..e0cc196 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv index d0d2526..b9d8c5c 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv index bad1208..d3c26e3 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv index 0b2a08e..ab41090 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv index 789e5b6..177dd7f 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 +1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv index 8c78c13..bcd0ed5 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv @@ -1,687 +1,5 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -693,309 +11,91 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv index eeb4aa1..47f83fb 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv index 9cd4648..303dad8 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv index e9eca4d..1c6ba39 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv index 056d069..9d05c6c 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv index 1563b83..de760d5 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv index ae860bb..5f9bf3d 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv index 79100ed..d0318de 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv index 57fe153..bd0f1bd 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv @@ -1,1001 +1,101 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 +1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/test_0.txt b/data/part_data_all/test_0.txt index a6b3245..0bf8fe6 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/test_0.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/test_0.txt @@ -98,903 +98,3 @@ I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of peo I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.

I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.

The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!@@@0 "Hotel du Nord " is the only Carné movie from the 1936-1946 era which has dialogs not written by Jacques Prévert,but by Henri Jeanson.Janson was much more interested in the Jouvet/Arletty couple than in the pair of lovers,Annabella/Aumont.The latter is rather bland ,and their story recalls oddly the Edith Piaf's song "les amants d'un jour",except that the chanteuse's tale is a tragic one.What's fascinating today is this popular little world ,the canal Saint-Martin settings.

This movie is dear to the French movies buffs for another very special reason.The pimp Jouvet tells his protégée Raymonde he wants a change of air(atmosphère) Because she does not understand the meaning of the world atmosphère,the whore Raymonde (wonderful Arletty)thinks it's an insult and she delivers this line,that is ,undeniably,the most famous of the whole French cinéma:

In French :"Atmosphère?Atmosphère?Est-ce que j'ai une gueule d'atmosphère?" Translation attempt:"Atmosphere?atmosphere?Have I got an atmosphere face? This is our French "Nobody's perfect".@@@1 This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.@@@0 -Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.

In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).

Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.

What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.

In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.

All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.

On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.

The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised.@@@1 -A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.

It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.

She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.

Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).

The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.

People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).

In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?@@@0 -Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).@@@1 -Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"@@@0 -After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's "Anna Christie", Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna "Anna Christie" is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's?

In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo!

Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.

Who shines in the German "Anna Christie", who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great!

If you have seen the American "Anna Christie" and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann!@@@1 -"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.@@@0 -Filmed by MGM on the same sets as the English version, but in German, Garbo's second portrayal of "Anna Christie" benefited from practice and her apparent ease with German dialog. Garbo appears more relaxed and natural under Jacques Feyder's direction than under Clarence Brown's, and her silent movie mannerisms have all but disappeared, which made her transition to sound complete. The strength she brought to the character remains here, although it has been softened, and Garbo reveals more of Anna's vulnerability. The entire cast, with the exception of Garbo, is different from the previous version of the film, and Garbo benefits from not having to compete with Marie Dressler, who stole every scene she was in during the English-language version. In Feyder's film, Garbo holds the center of attention throughout, although the three supporting players, particularly the father, gave excellent performances.

Feyder's direction was more assured than Clarence Brown's, and his use of the camera and editing techniques did not seem as constrained by the new sound process as did those of Brown. The film moves with more fluidity than the English language adaptation, and the static nature of the first film has been replaced with a flow that maintains viewer interest. Even William Daniels cinematography seems improved over his filming of the Brown version. He captured Garbo's luminescence and the atmospherics of the docks with style. Also, the screenplay adaptation for the European audience made Anna's profession quite clear from the start, and the explicitness clarifies for viewers who were unfamiliar with the play as to what was only implied in the Brown filming. However, the film was made before the Production Code was introduced, which made the censorship puzzling.

Garbo's Oscar nomination for "Anna Christie" was always somewhat mystifying, and I suspected that the nod was given more in recognition of her relatively smooth transition to sound films than for her performance. However, some of the Academy voters may have seen the German-language version of the film, and they realized, as will contemporary viewers, that her "Anna Christie" under Feyder's direction was definitely Oscar worthy.@@@1 -Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.

A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.@@@0 -I waited ages before seeing this as all the reviews I read of this said it was horrible! i rented it expecting the worst, and while it is hardly the best sandler film out there, there are much worse! Sandler frequently talks to the camera and the film does not take itself seriously, but that is all part of the fun! A great way to waste an afternoon, and you might even find yourself laughing once a twice! A good film, well worth renting!@@@1 -Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well.@@@0 -I had started to lose my faith in films of recent being inundated with the typical Genre Hollywood film. Story lines fail, and camera work is merely copied from the last film of similiar taste. But, then I saw Zentropa (Europa) and my faith was renewed. Not only is the metaphorical storyline enthralling but the use of color and black and white is visually stimulating. The narrator (Max Von Sydow) takes you through a spellbounding journey every step of the way and engrosses you into Europa 1945. We have all seen death put on screen in a hundred thousand ways but the beauty of this film is how it takes you through every slow-moving moment that leads you to death. Unlike many films it doesn't cut after one second of showing (for example) a knife but forces you to watch the devastating yet sensuous beauty of a man's final moments. I think we can all take something different away from what this movie is trying to say but it is definitely worth taking the time to find out what it all really means. I would love to talk more in depth about the film for any one who wishes to send me an email. Enjoy it!@@@1 -I would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash! There are films that are bad, but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you! The sex sequences, so shocking in its day, couldn't even arouse a rabbit. The so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night Marxism. The film is self-consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. The photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. Some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. Even the sound is bad! And some people call this art?

@@@0 -This version of Anna Christie is in German. Greta Garbo again plays Anna Christie, but all of the other characters have different actors from the English version. Both were filmed back to back because Garbo had such a following in Germany. Garbo herself supposedly favored her Anna Christie in this version over the English version. It's a good tale and a must-see for Garbo fans.@@@1 -There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.@@@0 -It's sort of crazy, but I taped from TCM both, this german version of MGM's "Anna Christie", and the english one...but I got to see this one first, 'cos I'd heard that many people thought it was better than the english version.

Without having seen the other one, I cannot compare them, but anyway this is an excellent early talkie, with a straight-from-the-heart performance by Garbo. She looks very beautiful in this film, her face shines throughout, especially when Cameraman William Daniels, gets those gorgeous close-ups of her.

The atmosphere of the film seems different from the regular MGM stuff made on that era, it looks very similar to french or german expressionistic films from the thirties, well it was directed by a great french director, Monsieur Jacques Feyder, who had directed Garbo in 1929 in "The Kiss".

Theo Shall is excellent and gives an absolutelly believable performance as Anna's sweetheart, the hard-boiled, tough, sailor, who's just a kid in man's body. Also Hans Junkermann gives a very fine performance, as Anna's alcoholic father and Salka Viertel too, as a good-hearted old cheap floozie.

In all quite an experience, because it's the only film were you can listen to Garbo speak in a foreign language...'cos all the other films she did in either Sweden or Germany, were during the Silent Era.

Serious Flick.@@@1 -Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?@@@0 -Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his "collecting trip" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.

This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.

The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.

Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre.@@@1 -An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?

Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).

The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.

His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.

After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.

None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.

Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).@@@0 -I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10@@@1 -This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody.

Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter.

Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.@@@0 -this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s.@@@1 -I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!@@@0 -Wasn't quite sure what to expect with this one, outside of the uniform positive reviews I've read. Turns out, I could have never imagined this movie, because it's very close to "The Bride with White Hair" in being operatic and dealing with the fantastic. This walks a fine line between being a farce, a comedy, and just plain good old fashion ghost story telling. There's nothing scary about it, that's not the theme, it's really mostly a love story dealing with a bumbling guy who encounters a beautiful ghost, who is in a lot of trouble with other ghosts. So the main theme is the guy trying to save the beautiful ghost. This also takes place in ancient China, with wild outlandish Kung Fu exhibitions, and a trip to hell (more or less). Some of the stop-action ghosts are pretty cool, and the visual effects are top rate all the way. I could watch this genre of Chinese movies all day, because they are highly entertaining, great visuals, and pretty much tongue-in-cheek. And I'm looking forward to watching the first sequel of this movie also. Highly recommended.@@@1 -I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.@@@0 -A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.

The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.

Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seen—a sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish.@@@1 -This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.

I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.

If only I could get my 90 minutes back...@@@0 -If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!@@@1 -When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage@@@0 -There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see.@@@1 -Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.@@@0 -A mix of comedy, romance, music(?!), action and horror. A knockout. This is one of the reasons people rave about Hong Kong cinema. If you're looking for something totally original, look no further. Entertainment at it's peak.@@@1 -This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.@@@0 -after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.

the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.

this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100@@@1 -Words can't describe how utterly stupid this story (and therefore bad this movie) is! Basinger, Del Toro ... what were you thinking ?? So there's a mall and its parking space is totally full. Basinger's character goes in to buy a cup of tea and some packaging paper.

When she comes out, the whole place is so empty, that nobody hears two gunshots fired nearby ?? Even though she lives there, when she drives away from the baddies, she goes to the most remote and godforsaken place possible instead of the nearest police station or at least a crowded place ?? COME ON !!! I won't even go into the infamous red toolbox, since other people have done that before. Let alone how she kills the moronic thugs one by one.

This is so stupid, without the least bit of logic, I can only warn you watching it, it's a TOTAL waste of time, honestly !!@@@0 -Just read the original story which is written by Pu in 18th century. Strikingly, the movie despict the original spirit very well, though the plot was modified tremendously. The film language, the rhythm, the special effect are all from hollywood, but still there is a chinese core. It is amazing how Hark Tsui managed to combine them together. The result is pure beauty.@@@1 -Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.@@@0 -"Chinese Ghost Story" is one of the most amazing Hong Kong films I have ever seen.It's a brilliant mix of fantasy,comedy,romance,horror and martial arts.The film has some wonderful visuals and amazing fights.I love especially the fight scene between Wu Ma and the tree demon tongue.Truly original and refreshing film and another Embalmer's fine recommendation.@@@1 -I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...

I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.

Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.

Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....@@@0 -Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means "Dawn please never comes" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow.@@@1 -For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of "The Great Escape," which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in "Gomer Pyle" and "Hogan's Heros." Then a second wave triggered by "Catch 22" and "MASH," both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the "Phil Silvers Show," about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from "Mister Roberts." A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom.

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. "Stripes" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some "Dirty Dozen." And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.@@@0 -For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it.@@@1 -This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.@@@0 -Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.

The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.

The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.

Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.

On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.

Since its release, "A Chinese Ghost Story" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10.

@@@1 -Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.

Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").

One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.

So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.

Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.

Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.

So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!@@@0 -There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.

It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.

I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection.@@@1 -OK I'm not an American, but in my humble Scottish opinion Steve Martin is not, never has been, and never will be a funny man as long as our posteriors point in a southerly direction. Phil Silvers as Sergeant Bilko was a funny man, no doubt due to the skilled writers and directors and all the other talented team working characters in the series who contributed perfectly to one of the funniest and dateless situation comedies America has ever produced. How anyone could have the audacity to even attempt to replicate the Phil Silvers character is beyond me. To compound things the exercise was repeated in Martin's unfunny attempt to be Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau, another abortive attempt, in my opinion, to rekindle a demonstrably unfunny career. Some of your contributers say 'Steve Martin puts his own stamp on the character', to that I would say 'balderdash' , his portrayals will be long forgotten when those of Silvers and Sellars will be treasured for generations to come@@@0 -Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.

To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.

Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10@@@1 -Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.@@@0 -A masterpiece of comedy, a masterpiece of horror, a masterpiece of romance, if there is anything negative to say about A Chinese Ghost Story, it might be that the special effects looked dated in comparison to modern technology. The film has a simple premise: a poor debt collector has to stay in a secluded area while trying to collect a debt. Of course, it happens to be haunted as well.

What I wasn't expecting the first time I saw this film is that it's one of the most touching love stories I've ever seen; that is without losing any of the slapstick comedy that will have you in stitches. Unlike some films of Asian cinema, A Chinese Ghost Story isn't hard to swallow for those that aren't versed in Chinese culture. Indeed, it plays on timeless, cultureless themes of the paranormal and romance.

Think Evil Dead 2, if they had thrown a wonderful love story into the mix. This film is for real, despite being overlooked by many. It's absolutely among the best I've ever seen. It's ability to combine the best aspects of multiple genres, and cross cultural boundaries in order to appeal to humanity everywhere, is nothing short of fantastic. Highly recommended, 10/10.@@@1 -I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be@@@0 -Though I'm not the biggest fan of wirework based martial arts films, when a film goes straight for fantasy rather than fighting I get a lot more fun out of it and this film is one of the best in terms of fantastical plotting and crazy flying shenanigans. Ching Siu Tung has crafted here an enchanting treat with fine performance and much ethereal beauty. The great, tragic Leslie Cheung plays a tax collector hero who stays the night in a haunted temple and gets involved with a stunning fox spirit and a wacky Taoist. Cheungs performance is filled with naive but dignified charm and Wu Ma is pleasingly off the wall as the Taoist monk, who shows off some swordplay and even gets a musical number. Perhaps best off all is Joey Wang as the fox spirit, truly a delight to behold with every movement and gesture entrancingly seductive. The film takes in elements of fantasy, horror, comedy and romance, all stirred together into a constantly entertaining package. Ching Siu Tung, directing and handling the choreography gives some neat wirework thrills, and fills the film with mists, shadows and eerily enthralling benighted forest colours, giving every forest scene a wonderfully bewitching atmosphere. Also notable are the elaborate hair stylings and gorgeous flowing garments of the female characters, with, if I'm not mistaken, Joey Wang sporting hair done up like fox ears at times, a marvellous touch. Though the film features relatively little action and some perhaps ill advised cheesy pop songs at times, this is a beautiful piece of entertainment, with swell characters and plotting, even the odd neat character arc, a near constant supply of visual treats and copious dreamy atmosphere. An ethereal treasure, highly recommended.@@@1 -I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.@@@0 -First things first, the female lead is too gorgeous to be missed. Now actress Wang Zu Xian, the one who played Xiao Qian in the movie, is 42 years old and well aged. It's always good to review these glorious times when seeing old-school HongKong productions like this.

The movie is one of the most influential titles made in 1980s. The art set decoration and other aesthetic facets are all mesmerizing. More fantastically the movie had a total black humorous undertone in it. It feels like a horror movie but ultimately it's not scaring, but only fun.

I had the experience of translating the second script of "A Chinese Ghotst Story", and I thought that script was a decent write. However when I saw the movie, I firstly was disappointed in seeing the movie different from the script, like in a smaller scale and involving more comic roles. However, it turned out to be better executed in terms of being entertaining.

If you have seen the Lord of the Rings, you will notice the similarities in this movie to LOTR. The climax is like a mirror of Miranda Otto fighting with the Ring Witch. It's definitely a laugh-out-loud. Bravo!@@@1 -I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?@@@0 -I like the good and evil battle. I liked Eddie in this movie better than any movie he has ever done. He wasn't The smart, cocky, know it all he usually plays. He shows heart and a more humble humor. The fact that it shows there are stranger things in Heaven and on earth than we can think of gives me hope.@@@1 -Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks – Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.

A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")@@@0 -Sinnui yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her@@@1 -No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!

Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.@@@0 -I saw this movie in my childhood. And after 10 years I did not remember anything about this movie but I found out it I also don't know how I was able to find out this movie. Its my life. My all times favorite movie. My words will fall short of true meaning what I have inside for this movie. I follow this movie. It's a brilliant mix of fantasy, comedy, romance, horror, erotic, scary and martial arts. The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm. It's a masterpiece of Hong Kong Cinema.

Sinnui Yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her.@@@1 -Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.@@@0 -This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.@@@1 -As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.

Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy".

There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.

And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?

I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.@@@0 -This is the best Chinese movie I have ever seen, and, in my opinion, a lot better than Hero or Chrouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The movie is a unique combination of several genres: It's a beautiful love story, action movie, comedy and horror at the same time. And the most amazing thing is that it really succeeds in all of this!

This movie definitely makes it to my top 5, and should be enjoyable to every movie lover. The action sequences do have the traditional unrealistic jumping and even flying, but the way it's shot differs from the style of Hero a lot and the flying always looks great and usually even makes sense (ghosts can fly)

See this movie, you won't regret it. 10/10@@@1 -As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...@@@0 -This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.

Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10.@@@1 -This was a rip-off of the same garbage we had to watch Bob Saget host during the half-hour before this. Dave Coulier only thought he was funny and it was pretty much the same show as America's Funniest Home Videos except with a hosts who have a combined IQ of three. Tawny Kitaen must've really needed the money and Coulier had to go to the recycle bin for his jokes. It was torture enough having to see him imitate Popeye and other washed up cartoon starts on Full House. That one dude who played all of the practical jokes on everyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a Grade A wedgie. Coulier must've needed to money to please Alannis Morisette while they were dating.@@@0 -I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, "Choy Huk").

Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.

Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)

For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.

Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine.@@@1 -I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!@@@0 -I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!@@@1 -A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.

Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.

Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.

I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.@@@0 -By 1987 Hong Kong had given the world such films as Sammo Hung's `Encounters of the Spooky Kind' Chow Yun Fat in John Woo's iconic `A Better Tomorrow', `Zu Warriors' and the classic `Mr Vampire'. Jackie Chan was having international success on video, but it was with `A Chinese Ghost Story' that HK cinema had its first real crossover theatrical hit in the West for many years.

Western filmgoers had never seen anything like it. It was a film that took various ingredients that HK cinema had used for years (flying swordsman, wildly choreographed martial arts and the supernatural) and blended them to create a film that was unique in its look, feel and execution. Forget the poor and unnecessary sequels it spawned, this is the original and best.

Director Siu-Tung Ching (still best known as an Action Choreographer on such films as Woo's `A Better Tomorrow 2'/'The Killer') has, under the watchful eye of legendary Producer Tsui Hark, created a masterpiece of Fantasy/Horror cinema. And with such an expert crew at his disposal (no less than 6 Martial Arts Coordinators) the chances of the film being anything but wonderful would be unthinkable.

The editing by the amazingly prolific David Wu (who wrote/directed `The Bride With White Hair 2' and edited such classic titles as `A Better Tomorrow 1/2/3', `Hardboiled' and the cult hit `The Club') is quite simply a work of genius. His crafting of the perfectly choreographed high flying, tree climbing sword fights makes them some of the best HK cinema has ever created. Fast moving, outlandish but never confusing they are, even today, the pinnacle of their art.

The crew of cinematographers have also done miracles. This is a film where every shot is an expertly crafted painting. Where wonderful blue tinged night sequences, shrouded in an ever-present ghostly fog, are the breathtaking platform for our story to unfold. It's a film where everything is used to weave a dreamlike beauty. Even the silken robes and dresses worn by Hsiao Tsing become living parts of the movie, whether in romantic sequences or battle scenes the ever present silk flows across the screen. Even a simple scene where Hsiao Tsing changes robes is turned into a thing of fluttering beauty as every skill on the set combines to create a most memorable scene from such a simple act. The sets are also amazing, giving an other worldly sense to the forests, and the temple and harshness to the scorched, flag filled wasteland of hell for the amazing finale. The production design by Zhongwen Xi deserves the highest praise.

Another major factor to the films success is the music by Romeo Diaz and James Wong. Hong Kong films have given us some fantastic music and songs that have added so much to the success of a sequence, but on `A Chinese Ghost Story' the music is, quite simply, vital. From the opening song onwards the music becomes as important as the characters.

The score is a perfect mixture of modern and traditional instruments. Drums, bells and guitars pound away over the action sequences to great effect, but it's in the slower, achingly romantic pieces that it comes into it's own. Here; flutes, strings and female choral effects create what are possibly the finest pieces of music heard in an HK film. Add to this the female vocal, stunningly beautiful song that plays over Tsau-shen's and Hsiao Tsing's love making, (nothing is ever seen, but the effect is wonderful. This is lovingly innocent movie romance) and you have a shining example of the power a film's music can have.

And we of course have the acting talent. Leslie Cheung (`A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2' and a very popular singer) is outstanding as the innocent tax collector. His work in the (thankfully mild) comic sequences is never over the top and his scenes with Joey Wang are played with just the right amount of passion and innocence.

Joey Wang (who would later be mostly relegated to support roles in films like the Chow Yun Fat/Andy Lau classic "God of Gamblers") has never looked more radiant than how she does here. She is the epitome of ethereal beauty. Her portrayal of the tragic Hsiao Tsing is stunning. She shows her characters sadness at what she has become and what she is made to do, but also gives off a subtle eroticism in the scenes where she is luring the men to their gruesome deaths. Veteran actor Wu Ma (`Mr. Vampire', `Swordsman') is great fun as the wise, brave, but ever so grumpy, Yen. He treads a fine line between the eccentric and the annoying with practised ease. And what so easily could have been a character that could have harmed the film is actually wonderfully entertaining and memorable.

But what about the monsters and beasties?, I hear you cry. Well they range from the rather crude but fun stop motion/animatronic zombies that inhabit the temple (resulting in a great running gag with constantly thwarted attempts to munch on the amusingly unsuspecting Tsau-shen), to the rather cheesy but surprisingly effective Lord Black. Complete with an arsenal of vicious flying heads, and quite outstanding wire work. Most of which has, to this day, never been topped.

But the most outstanding effect and creation is the tree spirit's killer tongue. We first encounter this thing with an `Evil Dead' style rushing camera effect as it powers down its victims throats to deliver a lethal French kiss that turns the victims into zombiefied husks. But later it's shown in all its crazy glory. It can grow so big and long that it shoots through the forest after prey, rips apart trees, wraps itself around buildings and coils it's slimy length around people before picking them up and throwing them against tree trunks!! It can even split open to reveal a fang filled mouth! It's an outrageous idea that given the deeply romantic main plot shouldn't work. But it does, to fantastic and unforgettable effect.

So what all this adds up to is a classic example of Hong Kong movie making. A true team effort that has given us a truly ground breaking movie. It's a film packed with wit, invention, action, monsters, martial arts, ghosts, fantastic ideas, lush visuals, beautiful music, and most important to it's enduring charm, one of cinemas most moving romances.@@@1 -A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it!@@@0 -"Bread" very sharply skewers the conventions of horror movies in general and "Night of the Living Dead" in specific and is constantly inventive. The production values are a little rough at times (it's a student film, after all), but it never loses sight of its goal to entertain. Hey -- George Romero liked it enough to include it on the remastered "Dead" video tape, laserdisc and DVD... that should tell you something.@@@1 -It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?@@@0 -Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???

(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)@@@1 -Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.

The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.

Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.

And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.

The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.

**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.

I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.@@@0 -Very funny film. Classic film funny Eddie Murphy of the 80s. I saw when I was a child and I have a good memory. The classic irony of Murphy does not fail, the film is funny, well done. Murphy in the'80s made many films of action that represented for him a way to joke about everything that is dangerous. The result can only be appreciated by some but ii film from 1986 up to now have changed. The atmosphere for a movie of that time is good and the special effects are good for a film of the period. A nice movie to see and enjoy appreciating the taste of ironic Murphy, an actor who has recently disappeared. The final part is anthologies, the likable actor who plays the part of the Tibetan Monk. That's it.@@@1 -It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this "movie." No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.

The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.

**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream??

**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.

(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).

**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.

**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.

**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.

**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?@@@0 -I just viewed this great good-natured parody of Night of the Living Dead, and I have to say it was so awful and so corny it was excellent. This movie incorporated all the antics and scenery shots that the original had including the cemetery, the supposable abandoned house, the basement and the front lawn. What I especially love about this movie is the comical use of bread and all the common household enemies bread has a grudge against. C'mon, we know that toasters, toaster ovens and zip-locks have done bread in a dozen times and now we must call for their help in order to defeat the reanimated bread. Aside from the cheap acting and voice-overs, this short horror film is my personal favorite parody of Night of the Living Dead, even better than Night of the Living Dead of 1990.

I think what makes this movie worth watching is how the writers and directors utilized all the dialogue from the original movie and revolved it around bread, including how the bread became reanimated and to avoid leftovers because they are especially dangerous. Another great reason why I love this movie is that, there is no exception as to what bread is evil, bagels are evil and even communions are evil, which is demonstrated by a hilarious scene involving a newscaster and a rather monotone priest. I think that the actors are especially humorous performing the deed of being viscously attacked by slices of bread (i.e. the car scene). I think the end is very worth sticking around.

Even though this is a short and that "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" is debatably another great parody, it's still recommend as a great horror parody done by, what seems to be college filmmakers. I highly recommend this movie to anybody who is able to make fun of Night of the Living Dead and still have respect for the filmmakers. I would also like to recommend this movie to anybody who loves D-movies and horror parody's, it's just a wonderful little short horror film that's fun to watch and learn.@@@1 -Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.

This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre.@@@0 -Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf.@@@1 -One of the those "coming of age" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.@@@0 -Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.

Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.

Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.

As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.

I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it.@@@1 -The film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.

I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.

Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10@@@0 -Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir.@@@1 -Un-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!@@@0 -Does anyone happen to know where this film was shot? The aviation scene on the cliff is beautiful. It appears to be England. However, Ivy's apartment building certainly looks like the Brill Building, with its fascinating elevators.

Charles Mendl is listed as playing "Sir Charles Gage". Maybe I blinked, but I never saw him. Perhaps he was the husband's lawyer, but, again, I don't recall that character being in the film, other than being mentioned as having made a phone call. Perhaps he was in the aviation scene? Or the ballroom scene? Did anyone spot him?

Herbert Marshall was 57 years old when he shot this film.@@@1 -The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd.

Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.

For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.

This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.@@@0 -Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling "feet foremost through the floor into an empty space."@@@1 -Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.

I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.

First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.@@@0 -An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can!@@@1 -I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight@@@0 -Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.@@@1 -Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.@@@0 -Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film.@@@1 -I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.

In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.

I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.@@@0 -Loved Joan. Great performance. What isn't she good in. I watched this film and then Jane Eyre right after... she just keeps getting better. My heart was racing. Great old movie drama. Just what i want from a classic movie. Facial expressions are worth the whole film. I'm glad i have it on video. Don't know what more you need in a film. Beautiful woman....wealth..... greed.....murder....detectives......a trial.....

The costumes are very nice. Makes me wonder what the budget was for this movie? Wish they still made films like this. Whenever they try they just seem to make a cheesy movie. Films in black and white still hold a certain mystery.@@@1 -This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)@@@0 -A strange role for Eddie Murphy to take at the height of his career. While there is a lot of the "Eddie Murphy character," he plays a truly decent person. The rest of the cast is good, particularly the lovely Charlotte Lewis. Her character's beauty and serenity held the tone of the film from getting to be too much Murphy.@@@1 -Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.

I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.

I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.@@@0 -There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance.@@@1 -"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.@@@0 -Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its "celestial" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's "la roue" ) is eventually more convincing than the "up above" heavenly world.

Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of "three comrades" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.

Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as "chief magistrate" tells :"here there's no more difference" .

Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career.@@@1 -Horror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.

Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.

Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.

Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.

My rating: 2/5@@@0 -The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.

While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true – people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes – au contraire – but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.

Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the "honey – I'll give you a deal" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century.@@@1 -Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!

It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.

Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.@@@0 -Artistically speaking, this is a beautiful movie--the cinematography, music and costumes are gorgeous. In fact, this movie is prettier than those directed by Akira Kurasawa himself. In this case, he only wrote the movie as it was made several years after his death.

So, as far as the writing goes, the dialog was well-written and the story, at times, was interesting. However, the story was also rather depressing yet uninvolving in some ways--after all, it's the story of a group of women who work in a brothel. It's interesting that although prostitution has been seen as a much more acceptable business in Japan, the women STILL long for a better life. This reminds me a lot of the movie Streets Of Shame, though Streets Of Shame's characters are a lot less likable and more one-dimensional.

So, overall it gets a 7--mostly due to everything BUT the writing. It's too bad that the weakest link in this movie is the story by the great Kurasawa.@@@1 -Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total "bomb" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.

Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: "I object!" "On what grounds?" "Coffee grounds!"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore.@@@0 -The Sea Is Watching has been made from an original Akira Kurosawa script, and it is indeed a lush and warm film. Watching it will be a pleasure !

Kei Kumai as director is certainly no equal to the old but everlasting master (particularly the mass scenes in the beginning of the film has some terrible acting), but the overall mood and scenery is very enjoyable. Another thing that is missed here: Kurosawa always managed to let the characters be so much more then what they are actually showing and doing.

Probably that was his magic on set while shooting; and just maybe this script was not fully up to par yet.

Maybe we just miss the eye of the master.

This is one lovely and sweet film, but it is no Kurosawa. To expect that might well be very silly...@@@1 -Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -Kurosawa weaves a tale that has a cast of characters as diverse as any Shakespearean drama, and the acting is true to the story, with each star playing their role as a part of the larger tale. It is touching, funny and intriguing in all parts. The character development is near perfect, the cinematography is vivid and engaging, and the story draws you in.

I would like to say that the "Samurai freaks" and those obsessed with late 18th and 19th century dynastic tales of Japan may snub this film as not Kurosawa's best work. Perhaps not his best, but even at his worst, Kurosawa is better than many of the best. This story is so based in elevating the mundane lives of ordinary people in a time of great change, that it is timeless, despite being set in the not-so-distant past.

I would heartily recommend this to any movie buff, and especially to those who are likely to continue on to read the novel on which the film is based.@@@1 -This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.

As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!

This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.

In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).

Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!@@@0 -This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody.@@@1 -This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a "feel-good" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: "it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do." What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore "buffing" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading "The Warrior Elite" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!

@@@0 -This is a wonderful movie about a brothel in a fishing village, that could be best described with scene constellations and direction of old Kurosawa's works, combined with Dostoyevski's topics of human psychology (O-shin - Sonia Marmeladova ), Shakespeare's drama and Hans Christian Andersen's tragic and cheerfulness. The screenplay is wondrous, the scenes are colour- and beautiful some scenes stay really imprinted in my mind. The plot is interesting and unpredictable - each of the characters is very well developed and interesting - there is also a little action, so if you don't like all the sentiments you'd also come to your costs - . It is not about mysterious Geishas and proud Samurai with their Bushido pouring all out of them, but about life, work and kinds of people found everywhere at any time. A lovely and fascinating tribute to Kurosawa, certainly worth seeing.@@@1 -This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.@@@0 -It helps immensely if one is familiar with the culture and time period in which this film takes place. First of all, these ladies are NOT geisha, they are oiran (prostitutes)in the Yoshiwara-type "green houses", circa 1860, give or take.. This should help clear up some details which may be confusing to the unaware. The film deals with issues of loyalty, love and, perhaps most importantly, how people deal with adversity, both their own and that of others in their immediate environment. That plus the outrageous photography together with the hauntingly beautiful music, make for a lovely ride. Just plug it in, suspend your disbelief and enter their world. You won't be disappointed.@@@1 -This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10)@@@0 -this movie just goes to show that you dont need big explosions,muti-billion dollar computer graphics,or highly over paid actors and actresses to make a good movie, All you need is a excellent story line and plot. which the master of all japanese films,Akira Kurosawa pulls off brilliantly. I recommend this film to all that love a epic period piece. and for those that enjoy Kurosawas earlier works. 10/10@@@1 -A real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.

I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.

This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.

A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 4/10.@@@0 -I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it!@@@1 -Well, it turned out as I expected: visual overload but nothing else added to the original. What did surprise me however was that the storyline was fairly drastically changed compared to the 1968 flick. Initially this awoke my interest, but what eventually surprised was that the new twists and turns (a) were apparently invented in order to present us with a typical Hollywood-like product and (b) made the whole storyline improbable! The 1968 story was breathtakingly straightforward, and included no time-storms or any bogus of that sort: it just stated that when you come home after a long journey, things might have changed a bit. Earth might have fallen in the hands of apes, for example. Like many 'old' movies, it's main ingredient was suspense (hell, does anyone understand that word these days?). In this Burton movie, an attempt has been made to turn the whole thing into an action movie, but at what cost? Surely, the images are overwhelming, and a lot of time and money has been put into the design of a complete ape-culture (even ape-music!), but what's wrong?

First, the suspension of disbelief is made very hard, because the apes have a lot of Hollywood-human traits. I refer especially to Ari and the slave-trader. These traits include emotional skills like irony, sarcasm, and an overtly displayed array of 'subtle' emotions. It makes you forget that the apes are apes, which is essential.

Second, the humans TALK. Of course, we can imagine that humans will never forget how to speak, but the fact that the apes had speech and the humans didn't made the ape/human role-switching very tangible and stressing in the 1968 version. The wound in the throat that Charlton Heston gets there is essential to his survival and his later regained speech essential to his uniqueness and the interest that Dr. Zira has in him (so, no need for things like human rights activists or ape-human love in order to explain things).

Third, the fact that they talk ads a great deal to the implausibility, but is a necessary twist in the new movie, since Capt. Davidson has to play the Hollywood-let's-save-the-whole-world- and-have-a-good-ending-for-everyone- and-still-make-it-to-the-lounge-bar- for-a-cool-diet-coke character. Oh my god, will they never learn? I new it from the start, when there was only one guy who got lost! They were in need of a hero! And then the script writers go on reasoning: we need one guy... so, why would one guy get lost... because he tries to save an ape from an electromagnetic storm... implausible! But it's necessary because it shows the audience that he respects apes! Since, in these modern and politically correct times, we can't have a xenophobic ape-hater like Charlton Heston's 68 character loose on the screen: let's give them a bubblegum version!

Fourth, okay, the general twist of the original 'discovering the truth' of the 1968 film to the modern version (he finds that his own mother ship crashed on the planet ages ago and that their lab-apes developed their society, where Heston simply discovered that just, somehow, the apes overtook the earth while he was away) is nicely done. The second, battle-part comes as an anti-climax. That's because this movie has added the first two Planet Of The Apes movies in one plot. Nice try, but the chill you feel when Davidson and you discover that he's lost on the planet forever just washes out due to the uninteresting battle-part.

Fifth: the ending!!! For chrissakes, who came up with that?! (a) Davidson crashes TWICE with his escape pod, which seems an unsteerable object, while the chimp manages to simply land gracefully? Come on, who'd believe that? If the pods are really small space crafts (Davidson simply flies off into space at the end) and not merely escape vessels, he might have managed a safe landing at least once, no? And what about that ending???? I mean, in the original film it was clear that everything took place on earth. But here: the whole movie takes place on a distant planet, and suddenly the same (there's a Thade statue) ape culture is on earth??? How come? Did the apes of the far planet evolve technologically, flew into the time storm and colonised earth before Davidson's mission took off? Why is Thade worshiped? Stupid stupid stupid.

Helena Bonham Carter is even adorable and beautiful as an ape, but I'd expected no less. I preferred her ape above Estella Warren as a human, but maybe I got some loose wire in my head. Nevertheless, the only convincing apes were Tim Roth as Thade (wonderful!) and Ari's household ape (the ex-general, but I forgot his name).

Nonono, a lot of things could and should have been added/altered to the 1968 pic, but not the plot, at least not in that way. It was simple and clear and needed no additional explaining. It was nicely tongue-in cheek and caricatured. Don't stylize everything...@@@0 -I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.

This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.

It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones.

The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.

I recommend "The Sea is Watching" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection.@@@1 -Hmmm...where to start? How does a serious actress like Demi Moore got involved in such crap? "First blood" might be rated as bull***t but this type of nonsense is just Rambo with tits, point. Of course if you are interested in the crapstory (Demi Moore just wants to prove that a woman can be part of the NAVY Seals) that is the most stupid cliché one I can think of, you'll say "GI Jane" is a great movie. Just the performance from Viggo Mortensen made this movie bearable but hell, I can't think of Demi Moore being Rambo (especially not during the last, useless, 30 minutes). Ridley Scott doesn't deserve the credits to make this movie one that comes up for women with equal rights, it's just brainless propaganda for the American army and to make it more attractive they dropped Moore in it. Awful movie.@@@0 -'Umi wa miteita' ('The Sea is Watching') was Akira Kurasawa's swansong to film: his adaptation of his favored novelist Shugoro Yamamoto's story into a screenplay he intended to film was his final mark he left on a brilliant career. Director Kei Kumai pays homage to both Kurosawa and Yamamoto in presenting this visually stunning transformation of word to image.

Set in 19th century Japan, the story explores the lives of the women of a Geisha house whose sole purpose in life is to earn money by pleasuring men. The house is run by an older couple who are genteel and the geishas are an enchanting group of women who know their trade and take pride in their careers. Each has a reason for turning to the life of geisha. Oshin (Nagiko Tono) supports her family who live in a neighboring village, Kikuno (Misa Shimizu) has customers both good and evil whom she manages to sustain with her stories of her higher caste. Oshin befriends an endangered samurai, falls in love with the gentle fellow, only to find that he must not marry out of his caste and leaves his pleasures with Oshin to marry his promised betrothed. Oshin's heart bruises easily but is always supported emotionally and physically/monetarily by Kikuno and the other geishas.

A handsome samurai Ryosuke (Masatoshi Nagase) enters Oshin's life and develops the first trusted and devoted relationship with her. Kikuno is beset by problems, deciding whether to accept the humble love of an old man who wishes to marry her, and coping with a rich but abusive customer. All the while the sea is watching and as a typhoon destroys the geisha house and street, Oshin and Kikuno sit atop the roof waiting for the promised rescue by Ryosuke. The manner in which the story ends is one of sacrifice, love, and devotion. The sea is watching and will find protection for true love.

The photography by Kazuo Okuhara is breathtakingly beautiful: night scenes with glowing lanterns and colorful geisha interiors are matched with recurring glimpses of the sea both calm and turbulent. The acting is a bit strained for Edo art, but the characters are well created and keep the story credible. The one distraction which is definitely NOT something Kurosawa would have condoned is the tacky Western music score that sounds like cheap soap opera filler except for the isolated moments when real Japanese music on authentic instruments graces the track. But in the end there is enough of Kurosawa's influence to imbue this film with his brand of dreamlike wonder that will always maintain his importance on world cinema. Grady Harp@@@1 -A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".

This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.

No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.

"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.@@@0 -My boyfriend and I both enjoyed this film very much. The viewer is swept away from modern life into old Japan, while at the same time exposed to very current themes. The characters are realistic and detailed; it has an unpredictable ending and story, which is very refreshing. The story is made up of mini-plots within the life of several geisha living together in a poor city district. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a realistic romance or life in old Japan.

@@@1 -

How this film ever got a 6 star average is beyond me. The script is so banal, and frankly an insult to whomevers life it is based upon. The cinematography comes straight from the slick world of advertising, and the talented Ridley Scott should be ashamed. Demi Moore however, shows none a surprise by participating in this film, if one looks at her tracklist. All in all, a "high concept" style film that even Don Simpson would be ashamed of.@@@0 -A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.

If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.

Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity.@@@1 -I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!@@@0 -A wonderful film to watch with astonishing scenes and talented actors, such as Misa Shimizu and Nagiko Tono. After 15 minutes of watching, your eyes get locked on the screen and you do nothing but breathing in the atmosphere of the film waiting what the destiny will bring to the characters. This film makes you leave your position as a standard audience, it takes you in, it makes you a part of the story... Costumes and settings are brilliant; especially the district of the okiyas is skillfully built. It is definitely not very Akira Kurosawa, however it still gets a lot from the master, especially the stylistic story telling tells us we're in a distinguished land of cinema which is quite far from hollywoodish flamboyance.@@@1 -Naturally I didn't watch 'GI Jane' out of choice. I was more or less forced to watch this film round my ex-girlfriends house.

GI Jane loses its credibility straight away by trying to convince the viewer that it is potentially a real scenario, which of course it isn't. The result of this is that the story becomes automatically bound by constraints, restricting the amount of humour (of which there is none) or entertaining action scenes, and soon becomes too serious. The film therefore becomes extremely boring and predictable.

'GI Jane' fails where other action films succeed, mainly because films such as James Bond, Dirty Harry and various others are larger than life, yet never proclaim to be otherwise. They are escapism, and therefore entertaining. 'GI Jane' tries to be real and fails.

This is a very disappointing film from Ridley Scott, with a very non-credible storyline, unremarkable acting, and the only reason I give it 2/10 instead of 1/10 is for some of the technical work.@@@0 -I can understand those who dislike this movie cause of a lack of knowledge.

First of all, those girls are not Geisha, but brothel tenants, and one that don't know the difference will not understand half of the movie, and certainly not the end. This is a complete art work about the women's life and needs in this era. Everything is important, and certainly the way they dress, all over the movie means more than words. To those who thought it was a boring geisha movie, I'll suggest you to read a bit about this society before making a conclusion that is so out of the reality. This is Kurosawa's work of is life, and I'm sure that the director understood the silent meaning of Kurosawa's piece to the right intellectual range.@@@1 -After reading through many of the reviews, I don't know what movie some people were watching, but clearly it wasn't the same one I saw.

This movie is horrible. The acting, primarily Moore's, is just terrible. The woman cannot act. Nice tits, but she just can't act. At no point did she come across as the actual character. Instead, it was spoiled Hollywood actress goes to the beach to play make-believe with the boys.

And that's what this movie ultimately is -- Hollywood make-believe. The training sequences are over the top. The politics -- over the top. The political correctness -- over the top. The combat scenes -- you guessed it, over the top. Your mission is to get in and get out without being detected. So what do you do? Why shoot off as many rounds and make as much noise as possible, of course. Oh G.I. Jane, you can be my wing man anytime.

The premise is good, but as soon as Hollywood gets a hold of it, we end up with Top Gun with tits.

What more is to be expected from commercial US films anymore? Not much I guess.@@@0 -Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.

I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both.@@@1 -Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?@@@0 -I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.

Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a "too young" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor.

The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.

It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a "Devil in the Flesh"?

The whole movie is a real treat!@@@1 -I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).

Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.@@@0 -the movie is far more sophisticated and intelligent is its exploration of sexual tension than such American attempts as 9 and a half weeks...the courtroom scene itself...with the couple copulating in the cage while the heroine pleads for their orgasm...is amazing...I have not seen this movie in 20 years...but it made indelible pictures in my mind...it is rich in texture and successful in creating a world where sex is the engine for all activity, and at its bottom is the yawning angst that lives in us all....the plot is European, and it meanders a bit, but so does life...especially when you are 17 and have a constant hard on....@@@1 -Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.

Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.@@@0 -Notable because of it's notorious explicit scene when the gorgeous Maruschka Detmers takes her young lover's penis from his trousers and into her mouth. Even without this moment the film is a splendid if slightly disturbing passionate and blindingly sexy ride. Detmers puts in a great performance as the partly deranged, insatiable delight, wandering about her flat nude. Dressed, partly dressed and naked she steals most of the film about love, sexual passion, philosophy and politics. For me the last two get a little lost and the ending is most confusing when her fiancé is released whilst fellow terrorists are released, she seems uncertain as to who she wants and the young lover seems more interested in his exams than anything else as she weeps, beautifully of course!@@@1 -I thought this was a truly awful film--I found myself actually yelling at my tv a couple times. One or both of the gay male leads was miscast; there was absolutely no chemistry between them and Richard Ruccolo looked like he'd rather be kissing a dog. The movie covers their long and tortured courtship, highlighting each break-up and make-up, but not developing the reasons in-between in any detail. These reasons would make for some interesting characters, not the fight or the make-up scene in bed (lame even if you liked the movie).

Andrea Martin and Adam Goldberg shine as their characters, but it doesn't make the film worth renting. Save your money.@@@0 -This movie was good for it's time. If you like Eddie Murpy this is a must have to add to your collection. Eddie was young and funny with his 80's haircut. Charlotte Lewis, Eddie's costar is hot. This was one of her first movies and she was not bad. The graphics were good for the 80's. A lot of the actors went on to do other good movies you should check them out through IMDb. Other must have from Eddie is "Coming to America" and "48 hours". Another actor "Victor Wong" has a small part in this movie. Check out some of his older movies like "Big trouble in little china". If you liked the action movies from the 80's this is your movie.@@@1 -I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.

The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.

But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.@@@0 -I loved the the film. it beautifully analyzes Italian petty bourgeois society, how the leftists of the 70s have given up all their ideals and come to a happy arrangement which they don't want disturbed. For instance, the aging psychoanalyst who is jealous of his own son, and doesn't want to be reminded of his more radical youth.

For a long time wanted to buy the video after having seen the movie a couple of times on the big screen and on TV, but it seems to have completely disappeared from the market, even in Italy no one in the book shops knew about the film. a great pity.

The one sex scene, which everyone seems to go on about, does the film no harm.@@@1 -Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.

This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.

As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.@@@0 -Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.

Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.

Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way "upatz." He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as "media." He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.

Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from "Antigone," which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.

That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, "I hate her." She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in "Repulsion." The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.

A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.

The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.

Worth it.@@@1 -I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.

Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?

I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.

Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan".@@@0 -I'll be quick to address the matters of the film here: It was a very engaging story about the destructive qualities about all-consuming passions; a young Italian woman who cannot emotionally connect with her jailed political-radical fiancé (due in part to her apolitical attitudes and freewheeling approach to life) finds solace and passion in a new young lover whom she embarks on an explicitly sexual relationship with. The anxieties, rage, tenderness and passions that swirl around in the atmosphere of the story equal the dispassionate quiet that seems to engulf the two leads. It lends the film an unsettling mood that permeates through all the political strife that is otherwise lost on the viewer (unless you have a deep knowledge of Italian politics during the 80's). I found the film compelling...what ruined it somewhat is a gratuitous oral sex scene that the actress performs on the male lead...it isn't simulated and leaves little to the imagination. There are other scenes of sex in the film, which I do feel were necessary because they outline the madness and loneliness that the characters live in. But the oral sex scene, I feel, derails the focus on the actual story. It was smooth sailing up until that point and once the infamous sex scene appears (which caused much hoopla back in its day), it's like hitting a roadblock. It's jarring and unnecessary and I am in the camp that believes that the film would not have been harmed any if the scene had been removed from it. And what's unfortunate is that this particular scene may deter people from watching this intriguing film, which I believe is worth a viewing because there is so much going on underneath the surface, emotions and further turmoils layered in the subtext.

Overall: Wonderful film hampered by a much not-needed sex scene.@@@1 -I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........@@@0 -This 1986 Italian-French remake of the 1946 film of the same name turns up the heat early, and doesn't let us come up for air. The story is about a high-school student (Federico Pitzalis) who can't keep his eyes off the mysteriously beautiful young woman (played by Dutch phenom Maruschka Detmers) who lives next door to the school. One day, he follows her, and his persistence pays off. There's only one problem: She's engaged to a sketchy character (Riccardo De Torrebruna) who may or may not have committed a heinous crime, and if he repents, will probably be let off with a slap on the wrist. Also, the young woman is a little "funny in the head", and this is corroborated when we discover she has been seeing the boy's father, who is a psychiatrist. Giulia's emotional instability is only equalled by her prodigious sexual desires. Hot, hot, hot, from the word go, with handsome leads and a bombshell performance from Detmers, who plays us like a yo-yo (as she does the boy) from scene to scene, with enough suspense to keep us guessing right up until--and even after--the end. Available in R and X (!) rated versions.@@@1 -This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.@@@0 -Cashing in on the "demons-meets-clergy" trend of the late '60s/early '70s that most prominently included the triptych of "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist," and "The Omen," "The Sentinel" is an addition that's just as good (albeit the most overlooked of the lot). In a way, it combines the best elements of those films and tosses in a dash of Polanski's "The Tenant" (which came out the same year) for good measure. A New York model unable to commit to her lawyer boyfriend takes up residence in a moss-coated townhouse that initially seems like the perfect locale; she meets a wily old coot of a neighbor (the brilliant Burgess Meredith), plus the other off-center tenants. Kept awake by loud noises above her apartment, she soon discovers that a mute priest and herself are the only residents in the otherwise deserted building. From there, director Michael Winner ("Death Wish") kicks this supernatural thriller into gear, and there is a devilish glee to the hallucinogenic tortures he inflicts on his heroine. Aided by a brilliant ensemble cast, a subtle storyline, and excellent makeup FX by Dick Smith ("The Exorcist"), "The Sentinel" is a genuinely creepy horror flick.@@@1 -God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called "Cartoons"!

Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons!

They are not even trying anymore!

Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.@@@0 -I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the "Brotherhood of the Protectors", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers "excommunicated" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as "brothers" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say "Father" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says "Brother" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as "Father".

In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all "Brotherhood of the Protector" scenes re-shot as "Archdiocese" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in "Godzilla"). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?@@@1 -I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.@@@0 -Wonderful film, one of the best horror films of the 70s. She is realistic settings and atmospheres. As usual it was inevitable the usual negative comments. I have noticed that most horror films of a certain period many times fail to reach even sufficiency. Obviously because most horror movies are old and must be denigrati, is like a mental mechanism that moves the minds of the potential of music critics here.

Before you read the review already knew what was the final judgment. In the film a good gift because 10 is really well done. Raines reads quite well and the film as a way in which it was produced reminds me a lot of Kubrick films. He really impression. Excellent film really. I consider a film anthology of years'70.@@@1 -"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars@@@0 -Well, after long anticipation after seeing a few clips on Bravo's The 100 Scariest Movie Moments I had long awaited to see this film. The plot was simple, beautiful model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into an apartment building that's a gateway to hell. The Sentinel is a down right creepy film, even if it's a bit slow. It's a mix of The Omen and Rosemary's Baby. The acting is fine, and there are some truly disturbing bits such as the awkward orgy scene with the dead father and the chubby woman in the middle of the orgy eating cake and laughing The ending is a weird mix of deformed people and cannibals. It's a very odd, campy but in the end, I truly believe a great film! One of my favorites from the 70's, even if it's nothing greatly original. It's wacky and extremely creepy! Probably one of my all time favorites. 9/10@@@1 -Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this … um … effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.

The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.

In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.

In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.

The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….

Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.@@@0 -I had the TV on for a white noise companion and heard" $400 for a fully furnished apartment" So I ran into the TV room expecting another 70's flick and got much more. Luckily, I could rewind to the beginning (DVR buffer) and hit the record button to watch it entirely.(Cinemax uncut and in HD no less!) Aside from some holes in the story and intermittent improbable dialog/events, this is an effective thriller worthy of your time to watch. Pretty creepy and progressive at times: Beverly D'Angelo's character masturbates in front of Alison Parker, played adroitly by Cristina Raines, Parker stabs, in very gory fashion, her father, an explicit menage a trios scene.( don't let the kids watch) The film is TOTALLY 70's full of bad clothes(polyester suits and tacky ascots) and decor, bad hair,over bloated music score, and familiar looking cinematography. The cast is excellent, take a second on this film's home page to check it out.It was a surprise to see Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach and Jeff Goldblum so young. Sylvia Miles- always wonderfully creepy! ENJOY!@@@1 -"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".

Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.

This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.

If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up in…err pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.

If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on forever…or at least until the world ends.

"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see."@@@0 -Ahh, yes, the all-star blockbuster. Take a so-so concept, stuff it into a script and load it down with every single freakin' special effect that the Wizards of Hollyweird can conjure up, then round up the usual suspects: hot up-and-comers, has-beens, wanna-be's and never-wuzzes, and stick 'em all in ensemble roles of various sizes in front of the unforgiving eye of the cameras. And hope to gawd that some of them aren't too old to remember their lines.

Leave it to the bishops of Box Office to apply the concept to horror films at last, as was the case with the post-EXORCIST thriller THE SENTINEL. Novelist Jeffrey Konvitz decided to try and one-up Ira Levin's ROSEMARY'S BABY scenario of creepy (and ultimately satanic) neighbors in a New York brownstone. The result was a controversial best-seller that some claimed bordered on the plagiaristic, and an equally controversial, top-heavy/star-laden vehicle co-written and directed by DEATH WISH's Michael Winner, but for many unsettlingly different reasons.

Cristina Raines (NASHVILLE) plays successful model Alison Parker, who is pretty much over- stressed and over-worked, (I won't add "overpaid." I mean she IS a model, so that would be redundant), not just by her 24/7 schedule, by also by her insistent , 'wanna-get-married- right-NOW' boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon of DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the classic SOB.I.G. movie LIPSTICK). One of the ways she decides to try to get away from it all is to move into her own place; a big, beautiful brownstone in Manhattan which she's able to get dirt-cheap, (that should've been the BIG red flag - cheap real estate in New York!), from the mysteriously accommodating broker Miss Logan (Golden Age screen vet Ava Gardner, fresh from the storm drain in EARTHQUAKE.)

Things seem fine at first, but ah, yes...then comes the noises and the loud pounding from the apartment upstairs at night. And what about the REALLY strange neighbors like Gerde (Sylvia Miles) and Sandra (a VERY early Beverly D'Angelo), the nice "single friends" (read: lesbians) living together, and kindly old Mr. Charles Chazen (a nicely creepy Burgess Meredith), who seems maybe a little too concerned with Alison's welfare? And that's not to mention other assorted squirrelly cohabitants (You'll never hear the phrase "Black and white cat, black and white cake" again without wanting to laugh milk through your nose and possibly vomit simultaneously.) Especially the old blind priest living in the penthouse...

Things really start to go downhill when an apparition-laden nightmare of Alison's morphs into a grisly murder, (in one of the movie's most underwear-staining scares), and both Alison and Michael, with some assistance from Alison's BFF, Jennifer (Deborah Raffin), begin to piece together the puzzle that reveals the brownstone's dark origins, as well as the murderous agenda of its other-worldly inhabitants, not to mention Alison's connection to them, which as it turns out is anything but coincidental.

Although there's nothing controversial about the overstuffed cast, which seems to feature every actor of diverse genres looking for work at the time, (Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, and even early appearances by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Nana Visitor!) Winner and company went back to bombastic basics and pulled a "Tod Browning"...by enlisting real-life physically-challenged actors to appear in THE SENTINEL'S climactic everything-and-everybody-goes-to-Hell sequence, which I guess any ballsy director would do, finding himself unable to access Linda Blair and a case of green-pea soup. It does definitely leave you with arctic fingers playing your spinal cord like a zither, knowing this juicy little tidbit of info as you watch. And it does feature a technique to which filmmakers have only begun to return very recently: live on-set makeup and special effects that don't involve CGI, (which was pretty much non-existent back then.)

THE SENTINEL has that kitschy, late-Seventies cheese factor, but does manage to distinguish itself from time to time with some gasp-inducing moments like the one mentioned above, not to mention that queasy feeling of dread that horror writers find it easy to play upon, of isolation and things that go bump-and-shriek in the night. After all, what living-single-in- the-big-city person hasn't lain in bed in the dark, and listened intently to the sounds of what they HOPE is "the building settling?"

Konvitz followed up THE SENTINEL with an inevitable sequel, THE GUARDIAN (not to be confused with the William Friedkin supernatural thriller namesake), that was never adapted for the screen. =sigh of relief=@@@1 -There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.

But so help me now is not that time.

Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.

I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.

The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.@@@0 -Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.

Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.

The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.

7/10 Great for all generations.@@@1 -What ever happened to one of the most innovative and brilliant storytellers of our time? Well, he made the kind of typical summer action fodder that could've been directed by anybody available out of film school...and in fact, they probably would've done a better job. They would've at least have put half of a thought into the dreadful script.

Mark Wahlberg plays an astronaut who traveled through some sort of wormhole and landed in a planet ruled by apes. (gasp!) Except this time around, the apes squirm through groan-worthy dialogue, nonsensical plotting, and showy special effects that constantly reinforce in my mind that this money could've been put to about 10 independent films that would have been considered 'masterpiece' next to this tripe.

As much as I enjoy the superb acting talent that is Tim Roth, his performance as evil ape leader Thade is nothing more than an intense composition of slouching and heavy breathing. Luckily for him, the makeup allows he as an actor to maintain some dignity and most of the crap-dialogue is hidden behind his groans and sniffles.

And alas, the always dependable Hollywood tradition of taking the male and female leads and hooking them up at the end without any relationship development or cause. And the "haha, we're so clever, aren't we?" way that Hollywood intermingles references from the original POTA into this one. Sigh...

Instead of seeing this, spend the night in and call up some friends and rent 'Ed Wood', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Batman', or even to a lesser extent 'Sleepy Hollow', and reminisce about the days when Tim Burton was a man of vision and originality...not shame and ridicule.@@@0 -Michael Winner is probably best known for his revenge-themed films, such as "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land", but he is equally gifted as a director of occult Horror cinema, as "The Sentinel" of 1977 proves. "The Sentinel", which is based on a novel by John Konvitz, who also wrote the screenplay, is a clever and immensely creepy religious chiller that no lover of occult Horror should consider missing. The film is obviously inspired by successful occult classics such as "Rosemary's Baby", "The Exorcist" or "The Omen", but, as far as I am concerned, it is also easily as unsettling as these more widely acclaimed films, and probably even creepier.

Allison Parker (Christina Raines) is a beautiful young New York model. Traumatized by events in her her past and not yet willing to marry her lawyer boyfriend (Chris Sarandon), Allison is in search for an apartment, and finds a big, incredibly nice one, which is also affordable, in an old mansion in Brooklyn. The new apartment, however, comes along with a bunch of very strange other tenants. And the sinister new neighbors soon become more than a little bothersome to Alice... This may not be an adequate plot synopsis, but I would hate to spoil any of this film's great moments, so I will not give any further plot description. What I will say, however, is that "The Sentinel" is a very creepy and effective film that profits from a great cast as well as an often bizarre and constantly uncanny atmosphere. The fact that director Michael Winner and writer John Konnvitz also acted as producers here certainly had its influence on the outcome. The film is imaginatively photographed, and the eerie old Brooklyn mansion is a fantastic setting for this kind of film. As mentioned above, the atmosphere is obscure and creepy, and the film also includes several shock-moments and genuine scares. The film features many sinister and eccentric characters, and the cast is superb. Beautiful Christina Raines is great in her role of Allison Parker, lovable and yet on the cusp to losing her mind. Chris Sarandon is also very good as her boyfriend, a successful lawyer, and the supporting cast includes many big names, such as Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger, before becoming really famous. The cast also includes stars like Ava Gardner, Horror icon John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, and, my personal favorite, the great Eli Wallach as a cynical homicide detective. I've been a great fan of director Michael Winner for a long time, mostly for films like "Death Wish" and "Chato's Land". "The Sentinel" is yet another great film in Winner's repertoire, and also the proof that the man is not only a master of hard-boiled revenge-cinema, but also of atmospheric occult Horror. All in all, "The Sentinel" is a creepy, intelligent, and amazingly bizarre occult chiller that is highly recommended to all Horror fans!@@@1 -They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.@@@0 -Director / writer Michael Winner's feature is a better than expected offbeat supernatural horror film (although still schlock efficiently catered for), which really does by go unnoticed. Sure it might borrow ideas from other similar themed horror movies of this period, but still manages to bring its own psychological imprint to the smokescreen material (of good vs. evil) and a unique vision that has a fair share of impressively expansive, if somewhat exploitative set-pieces. As a whole it's sketchy, however remains intriguing by instilling an ominous charge without going gang-busters with the scares. Actually there's always something going on amongst its busy framework, but it's rather down-played with its shocks steering to soapy patterns and atmospheric tailoring, up until its vividly repellent and grisly climax with a downbeat revelation. Winner's dressed up craftsmanship might feel pedestrian, however it's the ensemble cast that really holds it together… as you try to spot the faces. There's plenty too. Some having more to do with the scheme of things than others, but there's no doubts every one of them are committed, despite the ludicrously crude nature of it all. It's interesting to see names like Sylvia Miles (who's significantly creepy!), Beverly D'Angelo (likewise), Deborah Raffin, Eli Wallach, Christopher Walken, William Hickey (a neat cameo), Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach and Tom Berenger in bit parts. Then you got a mild-mannered Chris Sarandon and movingly gorgeous Cristina Raines in the leads. Offering able support José Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith and Arthur Kennedy. The script does throw around many characters, as well as notions but gets disjointedly sidetrack by trying to squeeze all of it in. However it's disorienting air works in its favour in establishing the suspicion and deception of what's really going on here. Is there a reason for all of this, and why is it surrounding Raines' character? The emphasis is mainly built upon that moody angle, as it begins to slowly shed light of her inner goings and that of the strange/worrying experiences she encounters when she's moves into her new apartment. This is where Winner tries to pull out the eerie shades, which projects some icy moments. Gil Melle was the man responsible for the grand, overpowering orchestral score that never misses a cue and Richard C. Kratina instruments the sweeping, scope-like photography.@@@1 -This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this@@@0 -The Sentinel is a movie that was recommended to me years ago, by my father, and i've seen it many times since. It always manages to entertain me, while being effectively creepy as well. The flashback scenes are what really made it for me. Cristina Raines's father running around all creepily, with the two creepy woman, always manages to send chills down my spine. it's your typical good vs evil thing, but at least it manages to be entertaining. The ending I consider to be one of the finest in Horror history. It has plenty of shocks and suspense, seeing Burgess Meredith do his thing as Chazen, had me on the edge of my seat. The Sentinel has the perfect build up of tension. We are never fully comfortable whenever Allison is on screen. We know something terrible is always awaiting her, and that made things all the more tense. This movie is often neglected among horror fans, but I personally think it's one of the better one's out there, and it certainly has enough for all Horror fans, to be satisfied.

Performances. Cristina Raines has her wooden moments, but came though in a big way for the most part. She's beautiful to look at, and her chemistry with Saranadon felt natural. Chris Sarandon is great as the boyfriend, Michael. He had an instant screen presence, and I couldn't help but love him. Martin Balsam,José Ferrer,John Carradine,Ava Gardner,Arthur Kennedy,Sylvia Miles,Deborah Raffin,Jerry Orbach,Richard Dreyfuss,Jeff Goldblum and Tom Berenger all have memorable roles, or small cameos. Burgess Meredith is terrific as Chazen. He looks like a normal old man, but what we find out, is absolutely terrifying. Eli Wallach&Christopher Wlaken do well, as the bumbling detectives. Beverly D'Angelo has one chilling scene, that I won't spoil.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is an effective Horror film that Horror fans, sadly tend to neglect. It will give you the thrills and scares you need to be satisfied. Well worth the look.

7/10@@@1 -I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).

Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.

The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.

Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).

In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.

3 out of 10.@@@0 -Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining.@@@1 -The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- "my sweet little god daughter" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.

Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy "theme" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.

Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.

The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.

This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.

In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire "movie"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.@@@0 -I'm not sure why this little film has been banished into obscurity, as despite some rather silly goings on; The Sentinel is a clever and inventive horror film that gives most of the highly praised ghost stories of today more than a run for their money. Michael Winner has admitted many times that he's not the best director of all time, and that does shine through on a number of occasions with this film; but it has to be said that the film works in spite of it's uninspired direction, and the fact that Winner has somehow managed to round up a simply amazing cast of talent more than makes up for it. The plot is rich with mystery, and begins by focusing on Alison Parker and her hunt for a flat. She finds that she can't afford most properties she looks at, but thinks her luck has changed when she finds a fully furnished apartment for an affordable price. Her problems start soon after moving in, as she doesn't like her neighbours very much...and this problem increases when the property broker tells her that she has just one neighbour; an elderly blind priest on the top floor...

The cast list is truly superb, with the relatively unknown Cristina Raines heading up a great support cast. Chris Sarandon is a little wooden in his role opposite Raines, but small parts for the likes of John Carradine, Eli Wallach, Ava Gardner, Jeff Goldblum and Christopher Walken, to name but a handful more than make up for Sarandon's lifeless portrayal. Michael Winner does a good job with his central location, as the block of flats provides a creepy and macabre setting for the story. The film is a little slow to start, but it's never boring; and Michael Winner's screenplay provides a surprise that's almost impossible to guess from the offset, which certainly deserves some praise. Like many similar slow-burning horrors, this one doesn't go for the money shot early on - but unlike many, the ending is a definite climax as Winner goes all out to shock the viewer, and if the rumour that he used actual human oddities is true; I've got to say that he does a very good job at it! Overall, while this film may be pure hokum whichever way you look at it; The Sentinel is one of the better films of its type, and it's definitely a major highlight for its director.@@@1 -I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.

So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.

Grade F@@@0 -This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.

The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.

The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.

The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.@@@1 -The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.

But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).

In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.

Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.@@@0 -Boasting an all-star cast so impressive that it almost seems like the "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" of horror pictures, "The Sentinel" (1977) is nevertheless an effectively creepy film centering on the relatively unknown actress Cristina Raines. In this one, she plays a fashion model, Alison Parker, who moves into a Brooklyn Heights brownstone that is (and I don't think I'm giving away too much at this late date) very close to the gateway of Hell. And as a tenant in this building, she suffers far worse conditions than leaky plumbing and the occasional water bug, to put it mildly! Indeed, the scene in which Alison encounters her noisy upstairs neighbor is truly terrifying, and should certainly send the ice water coursing down the spines of most viewers. Despite many critics' complaints regarding Raines' acting ability, I thought she was just fine, more than ably holding her own in scenes with Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Kennedy, Chris Sarandon and Eli Wallach. The picture builds to an effectively eerie conclusion, and although some plot points go unexplained, I was left feeling more than satisfied. As the book "DVD Delirium" puts it, "any movie with Beverly D'Angelo and Sylvia Miles as topless cannibal lesbians in leotards can't be all bad"! On a side note, yesterday I walked over to 10 Montague Terrace in Brooklyn Heights to take a look at the Sentinel House. Yes, it's still there, and although shorn of its heavy coat of ivy and lacking a blind priest/nun at the top-floor window, looks much the same as it did in this picture. If this house really does sit atop the entrance to Hell, I take it that Hell is...the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. But we New Yorkers have known THAT for some time!@@@1 -This collection really sucks!

I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).

And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so "cool" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!

This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.

Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!

Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!@@@0 -This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- "Blind? Then what does he look at?" After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the "invisible" neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light.@@@1 -Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.

The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.@@@0 -In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.

The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.

If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.

I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen.@@@1 -Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.@@@0 -I was an usherette in an old theater in Northern California when this movie came out. As good as it is on DVD, it's even more eerie and terrifying on the big screen. Although it has been about 9 years since I have seen it, it is still one of my all-time favorites. At the risk of sounding trite, "They just don't make 'em like this anymore!" If Sixth Sense freaked you out at all, this movie is definitely for you! Great storyline, incredible cast of characters, ominous setting; even the soundtrack has a haunting quality to it. I highly recommend you not watch it alone. What a brownstone apartment was renting for in 1977 alone, will have you gasping (it would be at least 10-times that price today).@@@1 -Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.

The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical – "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.

Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time – see under "Pixar".

On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash".@@@0 -This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment.@@@1 -I had VERY low expectations for this alleged "re-imagining" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.@@@0 -NYC model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) rents a room in an old brownstone where she meets a few bizarre neighbors and experiences some creepy hallucinations. As lawyer boyfriend Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) goes about making inquiries on her behalf, she struggles to maintain her sanity (not to mention her will to live) as her experiences take a toll on her physical, mental, and emotional health.

I don't want to spoil the better moments in this psychological horror film for those unfamiliar with it. The story is interesting and entertaining, but the film doesn't really offer much in terms of real scares. Or, for that matter, any atmosphere. It is sort of quietly sinister, but it's not like the traditional horror film. It's more of a story about a troubled woman's attempts to deal with the increasing unreality in her life. On that level, it works, but it's not quite powerful enough.

What "The Sentinel" *does* offer are some eye-catching set pieces (in particular, the fascinating, fabulously creepy climax, and there's a scene with Beverly D'Angelo that must be seen to be believed). There's also some gore to be seen, but not very much. An ominous music score by Gil Melle adds to the menace.

No review of this film would be complete without an appraisal for the film-makers in gathering such excellent actors for its ensemble cast. Some of them don't get to do too much, but to see all of them together is impressive. Eli Wallach and Burgess Meredith make the biggest impressions as, respectively, a hard-nosed detective and a solicitous neighbor. Other legendary names include Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, and Ava Gardner. Future stars like D'Angelo, Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum make brief appearances, and other familiar faces include Jerry Orbach, Sylvia Miles, William Hickey, and Martin Balsam. Whoever was the casting director for this film deserves some sort of prize.

Written for the screen by director Michael Winner, probably best known for the "Death Wish" series that he did with Charles Bronson, from the novel by Jeffrey Konvitz.

I wouldn't consider this a truly great horror thriller but it has its moments and is reasonably entertaining.

7/10@@@1 -The creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie at all costs.@@@0 -A young woman who is a successful model, and is also engaged to be married, and who has twice attempted suicide in the past, is chosen by a secretive and distant association of Catholic priests to be the next "sentinel" to the gateway to Hell, which apparently goes through a creepy old, but well maintained Brooklyn apartment building. Its tenants take the stairway up and can reincarnate themselves, but apparently can't escape as long as a sentinel is there to block the way. The previous one(John Carradine) is about dead, so she, by fate or whatever, becomes the next one, and the doomed must get her to kill herself in order for them to be free. Lots of interesting details lie under the surface, her relationship with her father, the stories of the doomed, her fiancé, so one can pass this off as cheap exploitation horror, but given the sets, the great cast, and overall level of bizarreness, this is definitely worth seeing.@@@1 -This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.@@@0 -Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her "sometimes" neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to "Burnt Offerings". 8 out of 10.@@@1 -Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.@@@0 -Christina Raines plays a lovely model in New York who seeks out a new apartment and begins to meet strange neighbors and reveal a secret about the building and herself slowly building up to quite a climax by film's end. This film has all kinds of neat plot elements from the Roman Catholic Church vs. the Devil, to the gateway to Hell, to bizarre rituals, to a growing conspiracy, and finally to a host of talented famous actors and actresses flooding the film. We get Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Chris Sarandon, Jerry Orbach, Deborah Raffin, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Slyvia Miles, Beverly DeAngelo, Eli Wallach, Martin Balsam, Christopher Walkin, William Hickey, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, and who can forget John Carradine as the old priest. Many of these actors ham it up - particularly Burgess Meredith giving a fine comic/demented performance as one of the neighbors with a little bird and a cat. Meredith is memorable as is Balsam and Chris Sarandon. Some of the performers have virtually nothing to do like Jose Ferrer in a thankless role even if it is nothing more than a cameo. The Sentinel is a fine horror film with plenty of psychological elements and some truly terrifying scenes. The end scene is repulsive and yet chilling. I do find fault with some of the gratuitous sex and violence in the film, particularly that whole scene with DeAngelo and Miles. Was that really necessary? I think not. Also, the father/daughter stuff was a bit much as well, but overall the film works and has a winning pace. Director Michael Winner does a workmanlike job and is effective creating tension and scary movie moments. The scenes with Carradine are particularly effective.@@@1 -While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.@@@0 -Sigh… I sincerely wonder why all the acclaimed and supposedly profound movie critics hold such a grudge against director Michael Winner? Surely he isn't the avatar of subtlety, as his films are practically always hard-handed and confronting, but so what? They're awesomely entertaining. His most famous action movies, like the first three entries in the "Death Wish"-series for example, are easy targets to clobber down because they allegedly glorify violence and the personal use of shotguns, but even when Winner takes on far more mature cinema genres – like the religious horrors of "The Sentinel" for example – he doesn't stand a chance with any of the critics. "The Sentinel" generated some controversy and infuriated several people upon its release, when it leaked that Michael Winner cast genuinely malformed and handicapped people to portray the creatures attempting to cross the gateways between hell and earth. Pretty much the exact same controversy caused Todd's Browning's masterpiece and landmark in horror cinema "Freaks" to remain banned and unseen for over thirty years! And why? Just because certain prudish and easily offended people, who shouldn't watch the movie in the first place, claim it's an unethical thing to do? I don't suppose Michael Winner or Todd Browning held these people at gunpoint or forced them to appear in their films, so what gives us the right to feel embarrassed in their place? Another major reason why critics didn't warmly welcome "The Sentinel" is because Jeffrey Konvitz' novel – and thus Michael Winner's screenplay – is hugely derivative of other contemporary but far more successful religiously themed horror stories and thus, according to the merciless pens of horror critics, little more than pure plagiarism. Admittedly "The Sentinel" borrows multiple substantial elements from "Rosemary's Baby", "The Omen" and "The Exorcist", but let's face it, 70's cinema largely thrives on stolen formulas and imitating success stories. If you overlook the slightly unoriginal concept and, in all fairness, a handful of thoroughly confusing and unnecessary sub plots, "The Sentinel" honestly still remains a uniquely atmospheric and often downright petrifying 70's horror-highlight with an impressive ensemble cast and nightmarish imagery you're not likely to forget easy.

Alison Parker, a ravishing model with some unprocessed mental traumas, moves into a stunning brownstone apartment in Brooklyn, deeply against the will of her boyfriend Michael who proposed to wed her several times already. Alison's physical existence and especially her mental condition drastically alter shortly after, and the ominous apartment appears to be the root of all misery. She meets eccentric neighbors and attends birthday parties for their cats, even though the landlady claims she and a blind priest are the only tenants. She frequently faints during her work assignments and has truly creepy visions of her bastard father and the night she attempted to commit suicide. It slowly becomes clear that Alison got chosen to serve a higher supernatural purpose inside this apartment building, but simultaneously malignant forces try and prevent this. It's truly regrettable how the promotional taglines and even brief synopsis on the back of the DVD immediately reveal that Alison's brownstone apartment is the earth's gateway to hell itself and she's the chosen one to guard it, because the film's script only slowly builds up towards this shocking revelation. For nearly 75 minutes (and throughout some sadly tedious and overlong sequences) Michael Winner successfully maintains the impression that Alison's own mind is playing tricks with her and that the involvement of the Catholic Church and her fiancée's odd behavior are strictly red herrings. Multiple of the horrific scenes come pretty close to being genius, like Alison's flashback or her first acquaintance with the priest upstairs. The whole climax, with the controversial guest appearances mentioned here above, is a literally perplexing showcase of pure terror and easily one of the most unforgettable and nail-biting denouements I ever witnessed.

The cast Michael Winner managed to gather is deeply impressive, especially considering "The Sentinel" still remains a legitimate horror movie and this genre isn't the most popular among prominent actors, but of course you also have to put the cast listing a little into perspective. With such an extended cast, obviously several of the roles in the film are little more than cameos. Martin Balsam and John Carradine, for example, only appear on screen for a couple of minutes all together. Several others (like Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Beverly D'Angelo and Tom Berenger) perhaps add a lot of fame to the movie nowadays, but back when it was released they were still too unknown in order to attract curious viewers. My personal pick for best performances go to Burgess Meredith as the uncanny neighbor and Eli Wallach as the satirical police inspector. The relatively unknown Cristina Raines does an admirable job carrying the film and Chris Sarandon neatly back her up, even though he sports a ridiculous mustache. In my humble opinion "The Sentinel" is a marvelously entertaining and frightening horror movie, and most definitely a must-see for TRUE genre fanatics.@@@1 -If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.@@@0 -Man, I really love the new DVD that Universal put out. I've never seen THE SENTINEL look this good since I had to put up with crappy, grainy VHS tapes for years. Unfortunately there are no extras beyond a trailer that looks pretty worse for wear. And AVOID the Goodtimes DVD at all costs. It sucks.

Anyway, troubled fashion model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into haunted NYC brownstone, only it's more than just haunted. It's also a portal to hell and the Vatican keeps an old blind priest (John Carradine) to keep watch over it and make sure the devils and arch-angels don't escape.

This has an all star cast full of old-timey actors like Ava Gardner, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer etc... as well as cameos of upcoming 80s stars including Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum (who's voice was mysteriously overdubbed) and Tom Berenger. And you won't even recognize Jerry Orbach from LAW & ORDER. I had to do a double-take when I didn't quite place where I'd seen him before.

Nice gore scenes of Alison slicing the eye and nose off her dead father's rotting corpse that's been possessed by the devil. And there's a neat ending where disfigured, deformed people try to haunt Alison into committing suicide so she won't be the next one to guard the portal. It seems Alison's troubled past makes her a prime candidate by the Vatican to become the next sentinel.

An excellent, creepy 70s classic from director Michael Winner that shouldn't be missed. I also recommended it for those who want something a little more imaginative beyond the usual stupid teenager slashers and horror comedy.

7 out of 10

-@@@1 -This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).@@@0 -''The Sentinel'' is one of the best horror movies already made in the movie's Industry! I think it is very scary as very few movies actually are. Alison Parker is a model with some fame. She dates a lawyer called Michael Lerman, and has as a best friend, another model called Jennifer. Everything was great in her life, until she decides to live alone for some time and rents a beautiful and old apartment.

The problem are her neighbors, who are very, VERY strange. Suddenly Alison starts to have health problems and faints with frequency; She also remembers some painful facts about her past that makes her have nightmares or illusions. But everything has a reason, and it has to do with the new house she is living...

I personally find ''The Sentinel'' a very creepy movie, and along with ''The Exorcist'' they are two of the scariest movies I already watched. When we discover that Alison's house is only occupied by the priest and herself my blood froze! It's also horrible to see that she needs to become blind in the end of the movie in order to be the new sentinel to keep the monsters away from our world.@@@1 -It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.

I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.@@@0 -Of all the movies of the seventies, none captured to truest essence of the good versus evil battle as did the Sentinel. I mean, yes, there were movies like the Exorcist, and other ones; but none of them captured the human element of the protagonist like this one. If you have time, check this one out. You may not be able to get past the dated devices as such, but this is a story worth getting into.Then there are all the stars and soon-to-be stars. My absolute favorites were Eli Wallach, Sylvia Miles, and Burgess Meredith. Then there are the subtle clues that lead to what's going on too. Pay close attention. I had to watch it four times to catch on to all the smaller weird statements like 'black and white cat, black and white cake'. Plus, the books are really good as well. I'm just sorry that they're not going to turn the second book into a film. It's so scary that it would outdo this movie.@@@1 -Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one.@@@0 -I have read the book and I must say that this movie stays true to form. I think this is the beginning of the psychological thrillers in the same genre of Psycho. Cristina Raines gives an excellent performance as the lead, and Burgess Meredith gives an excellent supporting actor as the next-door neighbor. I have seen this movie at least twice and I think that I am going to buy both the book and the movie for my collection. The suspense just keeps building up to the climatic end, the twist you will never see coming. If you like movies like Signs and The Village, the Sentinel will be a classic prelude. Also, what is interesting is the actors in the movie-you would not recognize them if you did not read the credits. The late Jerry Orbach is great as the commercial director and Jeff Goldblum is excellent as the photographer. Also there is Beverly D'Angelo, who is underrated but great.@@@1 -**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**

If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.

Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.@@@0 -Bored with the normal, run-of-the-mill staple films to watch this Halloween that I've seen over and over again, I took a chance on "The Sentinel", hoping it could get my horror juices flowing again. Mind you, I had just come back from seeing the Dark Castle remake of "The House on Haunted Hill" - complete and utter crap. Thankfully, "The Sentinel" BLEW ME AWAY! In a riviting story about a model who moves into a creepy building in Brooklyn Hights, the film offered everything that I hope to find in a good movie - (1) Campy and fantasically juicy characters, exchanges and dialogue, including hilaraious turns by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and especially, Martin Balsam, as an absent minded professor - (2) Horrifying Terror! Not to give a frame away, but there are scenes in this film that chilled me to my pancreas - (3) Fantastic gore, terrific make-up and wacky (if very uneven) direction from Michael Winner, which flows rather nicely with this unreal treat. If you loved "Evil Dead 2", "Dead Alive" and "Deep Rising" - this will be your queen of favourites. Just to emphasize my love for this film - after I watched it for the first time, jaw-dropped, I rewound it and watched it again. It is now one of favourites of all time. Do yourself a favour and check it out!@@@1 -Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!

Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.

Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.

I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.@@@0 -While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.

Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.

@@@1 -This Tim Burton remake of the original "Planet of the Apes" from 1968 (and starring Charleton Heston) is a far, far cry from the quality and plot of the original.

Certainly special effects have improved since 1968, but writing has not. The characters were boring and the dialog was awful. I sat through the entire film with a friend (who thankfully only rented it) and completely understood why, before Christmas, all of the "Planet of the Apes" toys at Target were in the clearance bin.

My advice to Tim Burton: don't put this on your resume.

My advice to everyone else: watch the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" movie.@@@0 -Bizarre horror movie filled with famous faces but stolen by Cristina Raines (later of TV's "Flamingo Road") as a pretty but somewhat unstable model with a gummy smile who is slated to pay for her attempted suicides by guarding the Gateway to Hell! The scenes with Raines modeling are very well captured, the mood music is perfect, Deborah Raffin is charming as Cristina's pal, but when Raines moves into a creepy Brooklyn Heights brownstone (inhabited by a blind priest on the top floor), things really start cooking. The neighbors, including a fantastically wicked Burgess Meredith and kinky couple Sylvia Miles & Beverly D'Angelo, are a diabolical lot, and Eli Wallach is great fun as a wily police detective. The movie is nearly a cross-pollination of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist"--but what a combination! Based on the best-seller by Jeffrey Konvitz, "The Sentinel" is entertainingly spooky, full of shocks brought off well by director Michael Winner, who mounts a thoughtfully downbeat ending with skill. ***1/2 from ****@@@1 -After seeing a heavily censored version of this movie on television years ago, I was curious to see the unedited version. I was surprised that it was more believable and well acted than I remembered, but one thing really stood out. I think other reviewers have mentioned this also, namely, what exactly is the nature and motivation of the Chris Sarandon character? Has he raped other victims before? Is he completely psychotic or an "average" sociopath? How did he expect to get away with his attack on the younger sister? Is this character at all credible, or is it just a matter of more background being necessary? He seems almost simultaneously to be an uncomfortably believable character, and too crazy to actually be able to hold on to a teaching job that puts him in contact with young, vulnerable girls. This seems to to be the biggest complaint of viewers in general. It has nothing to do with his performance, which is terrifyingly convincing.The movie occupies an uneasy position between sheer exploitation and a half way serious treatment of the subject, without quite settling into either mode. Not the worst movie ever made, but not all that good, either.@@@0 -Minor Spoilers

Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) is a successful top model, living with the lawyer Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) in his apartment. She tried to commit suicide twice in the past: the first time, when she was a teenager and saw her father cheating her mother with two women in her home, and then when Michael's wife died. Since then, she left Christ and the Catholic Church behind. Alison wants to live alone in her own apartment and with the help of the real state agent Miss Logan (Ava Gardner), she finds a wonderful furnished old apartment in Brooklyn Heights for a reasonable rental. She sees a weird man in the window in the last floor of the building, and Miss Logan informs that he is Father Francis Matthew Halloran (John Carradine), a blinded priest who lives alone supported by the Catholic Church. Alison moves to her new place, and once there, she receives a visitor: her neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) welcomes her and introduces the new neighbors to her. Then, he invites Alison to his cat Jezebel's birthday party in the night. On the next day, weird things happen with Alison in her apartment and with her health. Alison looks for Miss Logan and is informed that she lives alone with the priest in the building. A further investigation shows that all the persons she knew in the party were dead criminals. Frightened with the situation, Alison embraces Christ again, while Michael investigates the creepy events. Alison realizes that she is living in the gateway to hell.

Although underrated in IMDb User Rating, 'The Sentinel' is one of the best horror movies ever. I have seen this film at least six times, being the first time in the 70's, in the movie theater. In 07 September 2002, I bought the imported DVD and saw it again. Yesterday I saw this movie once more. Even after so many years, this film is still terrific. The creepy and lurid story frightens even in the present days. The cast is a constellation of stars and starlets. You can see many actors and actresses, who became famous, in the beginning of career. Fans of horror movie certainly worships 'The Sentinel', and I am one of them. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'A Sentinela dos Malditos' ('The Sentinel of the Damned')

Obs.: On 02 September 2007, I saw this movie again.@@@1 -Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer?

The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.

It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.@@@0 -'The second beginning' as it's title explains, shows us the beginning of the end for the human race. Set long before the matrix existed, this short anime written by the Wachowski's shows us the world that could lay infront of us in the not to distant future, set at the turn of the 21st century, the second renaissance delves into issues common with human behaviour; greed, power, control, vanity etc.

The use of robots or artificial intellegence as slaves or servents is common among science fiction/fantasy stories. The second renaissance is no exeption to this concept, however instead of a simple man vs. machine layout, this story explains the struggle that the machines put up with, the struggle for acceptance in a world ruled by humans. Where the matrix films show us the human perspective, these short animations tell both sides of the story.

The second renaissance part 1 + 2, answer many questions brought up by the original Matrix film, such as how the war broke out, how the sky was blackend, what led to the use of humans as batteries and it also introduces us to the machine city called 01, which may have relevance to the upcoming Matrix Revolutions film.

I won't give away too much of the story, as I do not want to ruin the experience for perspective viewers, however, I will recommend it to anybody interested in the world of the matrix or simply anybody interested in Japanese animation (anime).

9/10.@@@1 -Ben Masters,(Kyd Thomas),"Dream Lover",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),"Arizona Summer",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !@@@0 -For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the "Second Renaissance" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.

What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, "God" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by "Man's own image".

As far as the shorts go in the collection, "The Second Renaissance: Part I" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become "the architect of its own destruction." Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.

--PolarisDiB@@@1 -When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.@@@0 -along with it's partner, this is the greatest piece of animation ever created. the images and styles are amazing, and match perfectly with the story which is a brilliantly realistic reinterpretation of our own world, where is has been, and where it could go. quite affecting and sometimes painful to watch, it it a masterpiece of the visual art.@@@1 -When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.@@@0 -This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled...@@@1 -When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.

Just your average movie.@@@0 -This is the second part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'.

In this one we learn how men and machines could not work and live together. It is a little history lesson in the world of 'The Matrix'. Not as good as the first part ('The Final Flight of the Osiris') but still pretty entertaining.@@@1 -There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.

It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.@@@0 -The first time you see The Second Renaissance it may look boring. Look at it at least twice and definitely watch part 2. It will change your view of the matrix. Are the human people the ones who started the war ? Is AI a bad thing ?@@@1 -I read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, "Criss Cross." I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film.

This movie is a "neo-noir" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status.

The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn't.@@@0 -What was always missing with the Matrix story was how things came to be in the real world. Say no more, because this part of the story covered most of the bases. What was truly interesting was how political it was, maybe even a cheap shot at the current presidential administration. Fascism and violence were the only things man could think of in regards to fighting the robotic horde, who were meant as nothing more than servants to humanity. What I also found interesting was the use of fear and how it was perpetuated by the idea of the unknown. We as humans tend to fall into that trap quite often, letting the lack of logic and thought overtake us because people can't believe the contrary. Well represented and put together, this a true testament to how illogical humans can be.@@@1 -Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.

When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."

1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.

This is what you're in for.@@@0 -this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.

this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.

the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.

anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.

the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies.@@@1 -The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an "NC-17" rating).

*1/2 out of ****@@@0 -I think the movie was pretty good, will add it to my "clasic collection" after all this time. I believe I saw other posters who reminded some of the pickier people that it is still just a movie. Maybe some of the more esoteric points defy "logic", but a great many religious matters accepted "on faith" fail to pass the smell test. If you're going to accept whatever faith you subscribe to you can certainly accept a movie. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the Aja-Yee Dagger is the same possessed knife Lamonte Cranston had so much trouble gaining control of in "The Shadow". No mention of it in the trivia section for either movie here (IMDB), but I would bet a dollar to a donut it's the same prop.@@@1 -Being a big fan of the "other" PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off.@@@0 -That was the first thing that sprang to mind as I watched the closing credits to Europa make there was across the screen, never in my entire life have I seen a film of such technical genius, the visuals of Europa are so impressive that any film I watch in it's wake will only pale in comparison, forget your Michael Bay, Ridley Scott slick Hollywood cinematography, Europa has more ethereal beauty than anything those two could conjure up in a million years. Now I'd be the first to hail Lars von Trier a genius just off the back of his films Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, but this is stupid, the fact that Europa has gone un-noticed by film experts for so long is a crime against cinema, whilst overrated rubbish like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life is Beautiful clean up at the academy awards (but what do the know) Europa has been hidden away, absent form video stores and (until recently) any British TV channels.

The visuals in Europa are not MTV gloss; it's not a case of style over substance, its more a case of substance dictating style. Much like his first film The Element of Crime, von Trier uses the perspective of the main character to draw us into his world, and much like Element, the film begins with the main character (or in the case of Europa, we the audience) being hypnotized. As we move down the tracks, the voice of the Narrator (Max von Sydow) counts us down into a deep sleep, until we awake in Europa. This allows von Trier and his three cinematographers to pay with the conventions of time and imagery, there are many scenes in Europa when a character in the background, who is in black and white, will interact with a person in the foreground who will be colour, von Trier is trying to show us how much precedence the coloured item or person has over the plot, for instance, it's no surprise that the first shot of Leopold Kessler (Jean-marc Barr) is in colour, since he is the only character who's actions have superiority over the film.

The performances are good, they may not be on par with performances in later von Trier films, but that's just because the images are sometimes so distracting that you don't really pick up on them the first time round. But I would like to point out the fantastic performance of Jean-Marc Barr in the lead role, whose blind idealism is slowly warn down by the two opposing sides, until he erupts in the films final act. Again, muck like The Element of Crime, the film ends with our hero unable to wake up from his nightmare state, left in this terrible place, with only the continuing narration of von Sydow to seal his fate. Europa is a tremendous film, and I cant help thinking what a shame that von Trier has abandoned this way of filming, since he was clearly one of the most talented visual directors working at that time, Europa, much like the rest of his cinematic cannon is filled with a wealth of iconic scenes. His dedication to composition and mise-en-scene is unrivalled, not to mention his use of sound and production design. But since his no-frills melodramas turned out to be Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark then who can argue, but it does seems like a waste of an imaginative talent. 10/10@@@1 -Oh, brother...after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all I can think of is that old Peggy Lee song..

"Is that all there is??" ...I was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the U.S. I was too young to get in the theater (although I did manage to sneak into "Goodbye Columbus"). Then a screening at a local film museum beckoned - Finally I could see this film, except now I was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it!!

The ONLY reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its U.S. release. MILLIONS of people flocked to this stinker, thinking they were going to see a sex film...Instead, they got lots of closeups of gnarly, repulsive Swedes, on-street interviews in bland shopping malls, asinie political pretension...and feeble who-cares simulated sex scenes with saggy, pale actors.

Cultural icon, holy grail, historic artifact..whatever this thing was, shred it, burn it, then stuff the ashes in a lead box!

Elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings..But if it weren't for the censorship scandal, it would have been ignored, then forgotten.

Instead, the "I Am Blank, Blank" rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (I am Curious, Lavender - for gay films, I Am Curious, Black - for blaxploitation films, etc..) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead, to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that "naughty sex film" that "revolutionized the film industry"...

Yeesh, avoid like the plague..Or if you MUST see it - rent the video and fast forward to the "dirty" parts, just to get it over with.

@@@0 -This is the second Animatrix short, and the first of them to be what one could call 'artistic'. It contains a lot of references, metaphors and symbols in the dense amount of material, especially with a running time of 9 minutes. I've heard some complaints that this is "anti-human", or tries to direct hate towards man, for their "sins against machine". I don't think that's true; it merely uses the robots to show us, that as humans, we aren't particularly accepting or open-minded towards anyone different from ourselves. I'd say it does a great job of that. The plot is good... it plays as a historical document, recounting what led to one of the main conflicts in the trilogy. Thus it holds clips from fictional news reports and the like. The voice acting is very good, if there is not a lot of it. The animation is nice, and the use of color, in spite of the usually realistic drawing style, makes it more open to do the smooth transitions and other surreal imagery. This has several bits of strong violence and disturbing visuals, as well as a little nudity. The disc holds a commentary, not in English but subtitled, and worth a listen/read. There is also a well-done and informative making of, based on both parts, so I would advise watching it after seeing the next one, as well. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys the Matrix universe, and/or science fiction in general. 8/10@@@1 -Matt Cordell is back from the dead for a third go-round, although I'm not sure anyone cared at this point except for rabid MANICA COP fans. Cordell, who died in the last flick, is resurrected through voodoo, and is now hot on the trail of several miscreants involved in the shooting of a fellow officer Cordell is very fond of. I missed part of this early '90s low-budget quickie, but it was pleasing to see Cordell wracking up the body count in various, gruesome ways. Problem is, the overall film is pretty static, and Cordell simply ain't Jason or Freddy. The interest wanes pretty fast, even with that grand B-movie master Robert Forster as a doctor who ends up with his brains scrambled. Stick with the first film in the series, which is funny and scary and exciting, all at the same time.@@@0 -2003 was seen as the year of the Matrix, with the release of two sequels and a computer game that actually linked to the plot of the film. Also released was a DVD of 9 short animated films, most written and made in Japan and made as Anime. Japan makes some of the best animation in the world. Sadly most of these shorts are disappointing. The best of them is the first part of a prequel to the first Matrix film.

The Second Renaissance is made as a historical file. It tells how humans made machines in their own likeness. Humans live the high life whilst machines are the grunts, the workers of society, second class citizens. In the year 2090, a machine, BI-66ER was put of trial for murder, after killing his owners who wanted to deactivate him. The machine does not have a fair trial and riots start around the world. The governments of the world order to dismantle machines. Many machines leave human society and form their own country in the Middle East, O1. 01 has a productive economy and easily undercut the human nations, forcing them into economic crisis. The human blockade 01 and reject the machines requests for peace, thereby it was the humans who were responsible for the war that enslaves them.

The Second Renaissance is a interesting watch, with excellent, traditional animation style and sets a compelling world. It shows how the machines were mistreated and that humanity sowed the seeds of their own destruction. There is a political and social world and the short tells a lot in it short running time. The short shares themes and a style to the classic silent film Metropolis, partly the beginning with the underworld. They are the themes of slavery, the mistreatment of the working class and racism. The short also has some religious themes and religious iconography. Mainly that men saw themselves as God and created the machines in their own likeness. Seeing themselves as the rightful masters of the machines. The machines too use religious iconography, mainly forming their nation in 'cradle of human civilisation' and the machines coming to the United Nations dressed as Adam and Eve, offering an apple.

The animation style is beautiful, done in the traditional anime style (like Akira). The set designs are great, combine futuristic with historic cities, e.g. Washington D.C.. There is well down future scene, and surprising violence, which is key to the film. The director, Mahiro Maeda, also directed the anime sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1, so has good credentials to Hollywood. He is willing to use violence and know how to keep a story going.

The only real complain is a continuity error to the first Matrix film because Morpheus mentions that the humans have no historical records or know who started the war. But its a good watch.@@@1 -I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.

You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.

The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie.@@@0 -**Warning! Spoilers Ahead!**

This short is part one of two that expound upon the brief portion of "The Matrix" in which Morpheus explains how the matrix came to be. Because we already know the story, the plot itself is no surprise; and the short isn't so much entertaining as informative. But that's how it is presented, as a file in the historical archives. The visuals are better than average, and the generally cold colors aid the purpose of the short.

A couple problems. The violence of the tale is a little gratuitous and, combined with the occasional dose of political correctness (UN scenes), detracts from the straight narrative of the short. Plus it needs to be seen with part two to be complete.

The Animatrix concept is brilliant, and despite a few issues, this short still fulfills its purpose. It would not have fit in the original movie in style, content, or flow. This is the perfect method to reveal the history.

Bottom Line: Good information. Could have been told a little better, but still a solid 7 of 10.@@@1 -I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise

Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, "how stupid can you get?" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.

The story basically is "Andy" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term "social-climber" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.

However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!@@@0 -You'd be forgiven to think a Finnish director from Helsinki would be no good at directing an American horror movie (especially one entirely located inside a US prison) - see this to prove yourself wrong! It was produced in the 80's after all and the film was made on a budget more fitting to a modern DIY company TV advert (something I think anyone would really notice nowadays what with practically everyone being accustomed to $100m+ budgets for action movies unfortunately dominating the industry mind!) being Mr Harlin's first major production and the - at least what nowadays would be considered a stellar - cast. I still think most of the Nordic contribution to the film industry as a whole is more to do with Stellan Stargaard's screen appearances (not mentioning the well overrated Mr(s) Bergman directorial efforts) - at least for all female viewers - but this flick really proves there does exist proper movie talent outside of the US and Hollywood to make us watch a film in suspense. Do try and watch this movie even if you're not a horror puff, IMO it's definitely worth it!@@@1 -ANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.

Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.

In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937).@@@0 -I was living Rawlins when this movie was made and I got lucky enough to be able to work on it. Both as an extra and with Eddie Surkin on special effects. It was fun to see all the behind the scene workings, from the Barbedwire coming alive to the Electric chair up through the wardens office floor. Also it was a lot of fun getting to meet all the actors, from Viggo to Tiny. Also the gate that was cut into the prison wall for the movie was and still is called "Disney Gate" by locals. If anybody is interested and is ever in Rawlins, most of the movies sets are still in place and can be seen during the self guided tour. It was a lot of fun working for and with R. Harlin and wished I had a chance to do it again.@@@1 -I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.@@@0 -Caught this film in about 1990 on video by chance and without knowing what i was in for. Many horror fans may have missed this thinking it was a typical prison film and the ones who did get it didn't like it as it was not what they wanted to see. The above mentioned factors are probably the reasons it is low rated but just ignore that and give it a whirl if you're a fan of the genre.

It has strong suits in all departments from script and atmosphere to acting and the prison itself.

An absolute diamond, a film i still have on video to this day. Check it out.@@@1 -The shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?@@@0 -A long-defunct prison, shut down for over 20 years, is re-opened and Ethan Sharpe (the late, great character actor Lane Smith), once a guard there, is put in place as warden. As the prisoners are put to work fixing the place up, they're instructed to break into the old execution room. This unleashes a fierce spirit that wreaks merciless havoc upon both guards and prisoners; cool-as-can-be low-key prisoner Burke (Viggo Mortensen, showing real poise in an early role) is thrust into the role of hero.

I know it's a no-brainer to praise the film for its atmosphere (it was shot in an actual abandoned penitentiary near Rawlins, Wyoming), but it elevates this horror film to a higher level. It's got a great sense of foreboding, established right at the outset. Director Renny Harlin made his fourth directorial effort here; it got him the "Nightmare on Elm Street 4" directing gig and effectively began an impressive career in mainstream action movies, thrillers, and horror films.

It may have stock characters, but it's got a capable cast bringing them to life: Chelsea Field as the young woman vying for prison reform, Lincoln Kilpatrick as weary veteran convict Cresus, Tom Everett as restless con Rabbitt, Ivan Kane as the outgoing Lasagna, Tommy "Tiny" Lister as soft-spoken giant Tiny, and Arlen Dean Snyder as Captain Horton. It's also worth noting as an early acting credit for Kane Hodder (as the vengeful spirit) that helped *him* land the gig of playing Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" series.

Decent special effects, moody lighting courtesy of prolific genre cinematographer Mac Ahlberg, spooky music by Richard Band and Christopher Stone, great visuals, the incredibly gloomy location, and an overall flashy and intense presentation help to make it quite entertaining. It's nasty, gruesome, and good fun for a horror fan.

8/10@@@1 -The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.@@@0 -Prisons are not exactly renowned for their kind hospitality and 'happy vibes', what with stories of fights, chaos, murder and of course extreme male bonding! But the prison in this film is a different beast altogether. Horror films set in cells are, as you probably know, nothing particularly new as they emphasis and exaggerate the fear of claustrophobia and the inability of escape – two of the greatest themes in horror cinema. With such examples as THE CHAIR (Waldermar Korzeniowsky, 1988), THE GREEN MILE (Frank Darabont, 1999), ALIEN 3 (David Fincher, 1992)and of course the entire Women In Prison exploitation genre itself, another entry into this niche has to be something inventive and a lot of fun to boot in order to be recognised. Or at least that's what you'd have thought. PRISON is certainly an incredibly fun and enjoyable ride and it's somewhat of a shame that it isn't as well known as it should be.

The film, in short, centres on an old prison (well, duh!) which has been reopened. However, it's not just fellow inmates and guards the prisoners have to fear, but also a mean ass demon ghost spirit with only one thing on its mind; death! And boy, are we treated to some awesome death scenes! I won't spoil anything here for you but there are plenty of innovative and enjoyable murders all done by invisible hands.

Besides the special effects and the murders, this film also has another thing going for it; it's cast. Headlining, we have LORD OF THE RINGS (Peter Jackson, 2001-2003) star Viggo Mortensen (and for all those so inclined, yes, he does get naked) whose performance is not only highly believable, but is done with such skill that his Eastwood-esquire character is both bad-to-the-bone and likable (a very delicate mix). Add him to a cast of 'hey-wait-a-minute-I-know-that-guy' actors and you've got yourself one great set of stars. The characters themselves however lack three-dimensionality and more often than not come across as very stereotypical. We've got a black oculist, a hard-as-nails prison warden, a human-rights activist woman and plenty of other stock characters. But in all honesty, this 'fault' actually aids the film. Instead of boring character development in an over-long equilibrium, we are chucked, more or less, straight into the action and once it gets going (very early on) there's not a single scene that's a filler – it's balls to the wall plot. Unlike a certain SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Frank Darabont, 1994 )! Sharing conventions with the slasher genre, this is somewhat of a convention itself, and, in good ol' slasher genre tradition, PRISON punishes those who have been bad.

All in all this is an excellent little horror film and one which is sadly overlooked and unmentioned among the horror world. With an excellent cast and great special effects and rather original death scenes this film is highly recommended to horror fans. Don't be fooled into thinking it'll be a cheesy little film either, just because it was made in USA 1980s, it's far from cheesy (although the very end does ruin this) and, simultaneously, far from gritty and realistic (whilst it attempts to tackle issues such as prison rape, these are rather subtly done).

I give it 3.5 out of 5 luvs. A very entertaining horror film with some very nice touches indeed.@@@1 -Alicianne (Laurel Barnett) becomes a live in babysitter for young Rosalie Nordon (Rosalione Cole) who has recently lost her mother. But Rosalie misses her dead mother a lot and continuously visits her grave (conveniently located in a cemetery right behind the house) late at night...where she also meets her "friends"...

This starts off good with a truly eerie sequence in the cemetery...then falls apart. The story is thin and there is TONS of padding to make the film 85 minutes long. The acting is terrible across the board (with Cole easily being the worst). Badly directed with some of the WORST editing I've ever seen in a motion picture. Scenes (and sound) are just cut off with no rhyme or reason. Also the film has terrible (and obvious) post-production sound.

As for blood and violence--forget it! There's very little and what there is looks incredibly fake. I've NEVER seen such fake-looking blood--looks like ketchup! Boring, pointless--a rightfully forgotten drive-in movie. You can skip this one.@@@0 -Viggo Mortensen stars as a new inmate of a haunted prison in which the warden (Played well by Lane Smith) has a grisly secret that could be the reason why various prison guards and inmates are being slaughtered by a supernatural presence. Lincoln Kilpatrick is the lifer who knows the secret and is scared for his life. When I think prison movies, I always think action movies starring Stallone or Van Damme or high caliber dramas such as Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile. However I didn't expect a ghost story more along the lines of Exorcist III. Prison however is an atmospheric effort and it certainly remains the best movie of Renny Harlin's career. The movie is creepy and has some good acting from a cast of (at the time) unknowns. Lane Smith comes off the best because his warden isn't the usual cliché of evil personified but rather nervous and twitchy which adds some credibility to a movie that far exceeds expectations.

*** out of 4-(Good)@@@1 -If you're going to look after a child, make sure they don't live anywhere near a graveyard. Especially if said kid has a habit of drawing gory pictures and disappears at night among the tombstones to see her 'friends'. But, our long haired heroine, oblivious to all the signs, shacks up with her family the Nortons, which include a strict father and a dullard older brother who becomes a love interest for our budding babysitter. Even more spooky than the zombie gang outside is the cast's tendency to talk even when their lips aren't moving, and for the words to not match the movement of their mouths. But enough of that.. domestic animals are being sacrificed, old ladies are having eyeballs torn out and the orchestra won't shut up during any scene, even the quiet ones. Oh, and the editor is having a day off going by the way the film drones on.

In fact, it would been better if everybody involved had taken a breather, smelt what they'd signed up for and gone AWOL. Yes, I know it's hard to get into movies these days, but this sort of starter point is not one on your CV you'd want. If would be like a trainee farm labourer having a conviction for chicken molesting. Featuring one of the worst lead performances ever by the shrill Laurel Barnett, and another almost equally as bad by the charisma-free child actress Rosalie Cole (The next Dakota Fanning she ain't) the film meanders on and on with nothing but padding until we get what passes for a climax.

This involves five or six members of the undead barricading our utterly useless heroine in a shed, while her bit of rough fends off these ghouls with a plank of wood, a one shell shotgun and whatever he can lay his hands on. But back up a minute.. earlier on they were in the car, and they accidentally discovered that the creatures found the noise of the horn so repellent they shuffled off at the sound of it. So do they stay where they are safe? No of course not, they run off to this abandoned building in the middle of nowhere, so the bloke can prove what a hardnut he is the girl can act like she's having a nervous breakdown.

Finally, the film closes. It doesn't end, it just goes to a grinding halt. The main character wanders back to her vehicle covered in fake blood, as if nothing horrible had happened. But, my dear viewer, something horrible has happened. You have just sat through one of the most lamebrained, boring horror films you're ever likely to see, and lost 82 minutes of your life you'll never get back. Just think.. years from now on your deathbed, what you'd trade an hour and 22 minutes for just to spend a bit of extra time with your family. Sadly, it's already too late for me. Don't you make the same mistake :( 2/10@@@0 -Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.

The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down.@@@1 -And that comes from someone that will withstand almost ANY viewing. The acting and sound is awful. This might qualify for a "so bad it's good" point of merit,,,for some. However I take my horror movies seriously and this is just crap-it's just soooo cheap, I think that's my major complaint. The dialogue is often hilarious-attention to how many times "you startled me" is used. The "child" actress is seriously god awful-I pray her acting career ended here..her line "DONUTS! I HATE DONUTS" is worth repeated viewing however.@@@0 -Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.

Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his wisecracking, quipping and charming best!, seriously!.

Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was reinvigorated and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child hits all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, wonderful colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film only asks you to get involved in the fun, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10@@@1 -I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.@@@0 -This is an excellent example of what can be done on a small budget movie. The acting is excellent considering the script & the whole atmosphere of the film is very foreboding. The gore is well done and used sparingly (look out for the excellent barbed-wire death) & the action is punchy when used. It's true that there are dodgy lines in the script at times, but compared to other movies on the same (or bigger!) budget, it's hardly noticeable at all. Overall, this is recommended. Trust me, it's better than it appears! 8/10@@@1 -This movie was seriously awful. The acting was the worst! It was worse than a student film. Super cheesy, and I think the worst actor was the old lady. At first I thought to myself, well it's an old movie. Then I remembered that that is no excuse! I've seen older movies with way better acting and such.

The music was terrible to. It was really choppy. The editing was poor (most of the dialog was out of sync.)

Overall, this movie doesn't even deserve a 1. I only watched it because I was so bored, and the movie hardly entertained me. It was just laughable. My dead grandmother's left pinkie toe could make a better movie than this.@@@0 -I pulled down a VHS box from my vast collection - many unseen - and picked out a movie, based on the box art, I thought would be fun, and yes, bad. Prison had that 80s cheesy look all over that box. I sat down and watched, and lo! and behold!, found that sometimes we do indeed sit down to a movie with preconceived expectations in mind. Fortunately, I reversed mine quickly and soon realized I was sitting down not just to an okay film but a rather good movie in total. Prison tells the story of an old, dilapidated prison being reopened to save on budgetary concerns. It looks creepy as all empty and filled with prisoners. The prison used as a set is incredibly atmospheric and easily the most important character in the film. The story using the prison as its central setting tells in a prologue of a man being killed via the electric chair. We see Lane Smith as a guard - tearing away a Crucifix before sending the man to his Maker. We then go to present day, first with a government board at a meeting deciding to open the prison and send a beautiful doctor in to make sure that conditions are acceptable as she campaigned vigorously against re-opening the old prison. Then we see the new warden, Lane Smith, haunted by a nightmare in bed - and given the new job of opening a prison he has not been to in years. Well, the rest follows suit: prisoners and guards arrive with plenty of stereotypes abounding. We are given some character depth and several of the prisoners are interesting characters. The acting is better than one might expect with Lane Smith doing as always a workmanlike job. Viggo Mortenson as a very different prisoner being solid. Tom Everett, Tiny Lister, and Ivan Kane really exploring the boundaries of their stereotypical characters. Chelsea Field is okay as the female lead. The best performance is by Lincoln Kilpatrick, an underrated character actor, as Cresus - a prisoner who had been in that very same prison years ago when the "man" had been executed" with some kind of terrible secret. Prison is not the next best thing to sliced bread or anything like that, but it is definitely worth a look and definitely better than most would expect from it. I was pleasantly surprised at the way director Renny Harlin created a story so visually atmospheric. The film has a tense, taut pace and Harlin knows how to build his scenes. There are a few excessively shot gore scenes - the one with the barbed wire was a bit much as was the one with all the pipes. But these scenes are visually creative and interesting. The acting is uniformly decent. The script actually much more cohesive than one usually gets from films like these. That may in part be credited to Irwin Yablans who wrote the story. You may remember he came up with the idea of making Halloween scary as a holiday. Here he makes incarceration a hell of a lot more scarier than it already is. Give Prison a break(get it).@@@1 -There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it.@@@0 -What we have here is a compelling piece of low budget horror with a relatively original premise, a cast that is filled with familiar faces AND one of the most convincing filming locations in the history of horror films. So...could anyone please tell me why this movie is so utterly underrated??? "Prison" is the Finnish director Harlin's American debut, which still counts as his best effort even though he went on making blockbuster hits like "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger" and "Deep Blue Sea". The story entirely takes place in an ancient and ramshackle Wyoming prison, re-opened for the cause of over-population in other, more modern state penitentiaries. Inside the former execution dungeons, the restless spirit of the electric chair's last victim still dwells around. The now promoted warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) was there already 40 years ago, when this innocent man was put to death, and the spirit still remembers his vile role in the unfair trial. It seems that the time for vengeance has finally arrived. Viggo Mortensen plays the good car thief who has to prevent an even larger body count and Chelsea Field is the humane social worker who slowly unravels the secrets from the past.

"Prison" contains over half a dozen memorable gore sequences but it's the unbearably tense atmosphere that'll stick to you for certain! Unlike any other horror picture from that decade, "Prison" features an amazing sense of realism! By this, I refer to the authentic scenery and the mood inside the prison walls, of course, and not towards the supernatural murders that are being committed... even though these are genuinely unsettling as well. The film's best parts are images of realistic and tough prison-drama sequences combined with visual mayhem and shocking horror. The absolute best terror-moment (providing me with nightmares ever since I saw it at rather young age) focuses on a grizzly death-struggle involving barbed wire. Haunting!! The screenplay only suffers one flaw, but that's a common one...almost inevitable, I guess: clichés! The story introduces nearly every possible stereotype there is in a prison surrounding. We've got the ugly, fat pervert with his 'cute' boy-toy, the cowardly and racist guard avoids confrontation at all costs and – naturally – the old 'n wise black con who serves a lifetime (did I hear anybody yell the name Morgan Freeman?) Don't stare yourself blind on these clichés is my advise, as there are so many other elements to admire. The photography is dark and moist, the mystery is upheld long and successfully and the supportive inmate-roles of class B-actors are excellent (the fans will recognize Tom Everett, Tom 'Tiny' Lister and even immortal horror icon Kane Hodder). Forget about Wes Craven's god-awful attempt "Shocker" or the downright pathetic cheese-flick "the Chair". This is the only prison chiller worth tracking down! Especially considering Viggo Mortensen peaking popularity nowadays (I heard he starred in a successful franchise involving elves, Hobbits and other fairy creatures...) this true 80's horror gem oughts to get an urgent DVD-release!@@@1 -A little girl lives with her father and brother in the middle of the countryside. This little girl Rosalie has some psychotic tendencies as the movie opens with her feeding kittens to some kind of creatures in the cemetery, and she has recently lost her mother who went crazy but whilst alive enjoyed staying in the woods all night. The premise of the film has a new young lady coming to Rosalie to take care of her. She is introduced to the evil of the woods while driving and, imagine the suspense here, experiences a huge blue barrel falling over the side of a cliff to somehow stop her car dead in its tracks. From there she walks to the nearest house and discovers Mrs. Whitfield who then goes into a whole lot of explanation about Rosalie and her family. The earnestness exuded by the Mrs. Whitfield character has to be seen to be believed. Well, the young lady meets up with the child and we soon learn that not only is she strange but everyone in the film is very bizarre as well. They all do share one thing in common which is none of them ever heard of an acting school. None of these people can act - as evidenced by the few vehicles any of them in the entire film appeared in before or since - and all of them look like they have little idea what is going on, pause to remember lines, and have all the conviction of a paper bag. The director plods through the material in a slow pace with this horrible piano music crescendoing here and there at things that are suppose to be scary. It takes us a bit before we get to a couple of murders by the creature friends, but by that time I didn't care. The murders are not convincing either, and truth be told the whole film looks like someone through it together on their friend's farm with the people and things on hand there. That all being said the ending does have some creepy aspects to it though we don't learn one darn thing about why Rosalie is like this or more importantly who the creature with the cheap masks are. Cheap doesn't even begin to describe the budget here with. It basically is a couple old farmhouses and some sheds at the end and of course the woods. Someone lent the director a couple old cars too. No special effects of any kind and only the most minimal make-up. There are so many guffaws/ridiculous moments to list, but I will just list a few here that at the very least made me chuckle from the lack of aptitude from the creative powers involved: 1)Watch the gardener's body well after he has been "slain". Len comes in and sees him butchered and you can see his fat belly heave with life. 2)the dying scene at the end where the actress playing Rosalie is killed. She looks like she is listening to directions and takes her sweet time dying considering the method. 3)How about the guy playing Roaslie's father giving us a cranky poor man's Andy Griffith. The scene where he is laughing about boy scouts dying was a weird hoot. The Child is indeed a very bad film and is very bad even for the standards of 70's cheese if you will. This isn't a B film but more like a Z film with producer Harry Novak making some money on virtually nothing.@@@0 -Story of a wrongly executed prisoner who haunts the prison he was electrocuted in and kills random prisoners while waiting to take revenge on the man who framed him.

Viggo Mortensen is great, and the acting is pretty good overall. Lane Smith is deliciously wicked as the guilty warden. Also, this film has some great gore, including death by barbed-wire mummification.@@@1 -I'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent.

The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two.

Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.

Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.

And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.

As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.@@@0 -Renny Harlin's first American film was one of the best of a slew of prison-set horror films(like "Death House" or "The Chair")in the late 80's.Twenty years before,guard Lane Smith had wrongfully executed a condemned man.Now,he is the warden of the newly re-opened prison,and the man's ghost is back for bloody revenge.This atmospheric and very moody film features lots of gruesome gore and violence.Viggo Mortensen,Tiny Lister,Tom Everett and Kane Hodder are onhand for the entertaining carnage.@@@1 -Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****@@@0 -This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. "I was just starting to like the poms."@@@1 -I don't remember "Barnaby Jones" being no more than a very bland, standard detective show in which, as per any Quinn Martin show, Act I was the murder, Act II was the lead character figuring out the murder, Act III was the plot twist (another character murdered), Act IV was the resolution and the Epilogue was Betty (Lee Meriwether) asking her father-in-law Barnaby Jones (Buddy Ebsen) how he figured out the crime and then someone saying something witty at the end of the show.

One thing I do remember was the late, great composer Jerry Goldsmith's excellent theme song. Strangely, the opening credit sequence made me want to see the show off and on for the seven seasons the show was on the air. I will also admit that it was nice to see Ebsen in a role other than Jed Clampett despite Ebsen being badly miscast. I just wished the show was more entertaining than when I first remembered it.

Update (1/11/2009): I watched an interview with composer Jerry Goldsmith on YouTube through their Archive of American Television channel. Let's just say that I was more kind than Goldsmith about the show "Barnaby Jones."@@@0 -The story centers around Barry McKenzie who must go to England if he wishes to claim his inheritance. Being about the grossest Aussie shearer ever to set foot outside this great Nation of ours there is something of a culture clash and much fun and games ensue. The songs of Barry McKenzie(Barry Crocker) are highlights.@@@1 -Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made "Rock n Roll" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got "mad as the wrestler" would say either "Were out of time" or "Well be right back" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who "Georgeous" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big "Hes a big-on!" punched or kicked in the guts "right in the gussets"or when kicked "He punted him" or "the "piledriver should be banned" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say"Right across the front-e-lobe" or when a wrestler is in trouble "Hes in a bad bad way". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now!@@@0 -'The Adventures Of Barry McKenzie' started life as a satirical comic strip in 'Private Eye', written by Barry Humphries and based on an idea by Peter Cook. McKenzie ( 'Bazza' to his friends ) is a lanky, loud, hat-wearing Australian whose two main interests in life are sex ( despite never having had any ) and Fosters lager. In 1972, he found his way to the big screen for the first of two outings. It must have been tempting for Humphries to cast himself as 'Bazza', but he wisely left the job to Barry Crocker ( later to sing the theme to the television soap opera 'Neighbours'! ). Humphries instead played multiple roles in true Peter Sellers fashion, most notably Bazza's overbearing Aunt 'Edna Everage' ( this was before she became a Dame ).

You know this is not going to be 'The Importance Of Being Ernest' when its censorship classification N.P.A. stands for 'No Poofters Allowed'. Pom-hating Bazza is told by a Sydney solicitor that in order to inherit a share in his father's will he must go to England to absorb British culture. With Aunt Edna in tow, he catches a Quantas flight to Hong Kong, and then on to London. An over-efficient customs officer makes Bazza pay import duties on everything he bought over there, including a suitcase full of 'tubes of Fosters lager'. As he puts it: "when it comes to fleecing you, the Poms have got the edge on the gyppos!". A crafty taxi driver ( Bernard Spear ) maximises the fare by taking Bazza and Edna first to Stonehenge, then Scotland. The streets of London are filthy, and their hotel is a hovel run by a seedy landlord ( Spike Milligan ) who makes Bazza put pound notes in the electricity meter every twenty minutes. There is some good news for our hero though; he meets up with other Aussies in Earls Court, and Fosters is on sale in British pubs.

What happens next is a series of comical escapades that take Bazza from starring in his own cigarette commercial, putting curry down his pants in the belief it is some form of aphrodisiac, a bizarre encounter with Dennis Price as an upper-class pervert who loves being spanked while wearing a schoolboy's uniform, a Young Conservative dance in Rickmansworth to a charity rock concert where his song about 'chundering' ( vomiting ) almost makes him an international star, and finally to the B.B.C. T.V. Centre where he pulls his pants down on a live talk-show hosted by the thinking man's crumpet herself, Joan Bakewell. A fire breaks out, and Bazza's friends come to the rescue - downing cans of Fosters, they urinate on the flames en masse.

This is a far cry from Bruce Beresford's later works - 'Breaker Morant' and 'Driving Miss Daisy'. On release, it was savaged by critics for being too 'vulgar'. Well, yes, it is, but it is also great non-P.C. fun. 'Bazza' is a disgusting creation, but his zest for life is unmistakable, you cannot help but like the guy. His various euphemisms for urinating ( 'point Percy at the porcelain' ) and vomiting ( 'the Technicolour yawn' ) have passed into the English language without a lot of people knowing where they came from. Other guest stars include Dick Bentley ( as a detective who chases Bazza everywhere ), Peter Cook, Julie Covington ( later to star in 'Rock Follies' ), and even future arts presenter Russell Davies.

A sequel - the wonderfully-named 'Barry McKenzie Holds His Own - came out two years later. At its premiere, Humphries took the opportunity to blast the critics who had savaged the first film. Good for him.

What must have been of greater concern to him, though, was the release of 'Crocodile Dundee' in 1985. It also featured a lanky, hat-wearing Aussie struggling to come to terms with a foreign culture. And made tonnes more money.

The song on the end credits ( performed by Snacka Fitzgibbon ) is magnificent. You have a love a lyric that includes the line: "If you want to send your sister in a frenzy, introduce her to Barry McKenzie!". Time to end this review. I have to go the dunny to shake hands with the unemployed...@@@1 -Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.@@@0 -This film and it's sequel Barry Mckenzie holds his own, are the two greatest comedies to ever be produced. A great story a young Aussie bloke travels to england to claim his inheritance and meets up with his mates, who are just as loveable and innocent as he is.

It's chock a block full of great, sayings , where else could you find someone who needs a drink so bad that he's as dry as a dead dingoes donger? great characters, top acting, and it's got great sheilas and more Fosters consumption then any other three films put together. Top notch.

And some of the funniest songs you'll ever hear, and it's full of great celebrities. Definitely my two favourite films of all time, I watch them at least once a fortnight.@@@1 -I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.

This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.

The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.

But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.

If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.

Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.@@@0 -I love this movie like no other. Another time I will try to explain its virtues to the uninitiated, but for the moment let me quote a few of pieces the remarkable dialogue, which, please remember, is all tongue in cheek. Aussies and Poms will understand, everyone else-well?

(title song lyric)"he can sink a beer, he can pick a queer, in his latest double-breasted Bondi gear."

(another song lyric) "All pommies are bastards, bastards, or worse, and England is the a**e-hole of the universe."

(during a television interview on an "arty program"): Mr Mackenzie what artists have impressed you most since you've been in England? (Barry's response)Flamin' bull-artists!

(while chatting up a naive young pom girl): Mr Mackenzie, I suppose you have hordes of Aboriginal servants back in Australia? (Barry's response) Abos? I've never seen an Abo in me life. Mum does most of the solid yacca (ie hard work) round our place.

This is just a taste of the hilarious farce of this bonser Aussie flick. If you can get a copy of it, watch and enjoy.@@@1 -Tainted look at kibbutz life

This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of well…evil.

The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy – his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote – "Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes."

There is one other "good" character in this movie – a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for "violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse.

The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son.

That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head – that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in." I feel sorry for the guy who made this film – obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.@@@0 -This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.

As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was "chosen" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.

Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.

This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.

This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor.@@@1 -This is the worst movie I have seen for years! It starts ridicoulus and continues in the same way. I thnik when is something going to happen in this film,,,, and the the acting is worse. The ending lifts it a bit and saves the movie from a total flop. Mark Wahlberg is a bad actor in a bad movie. Sorry Tim Burton Batman was good but this one sucks.@@@0 -A hit at the time but now better categorised as an Australian cult film. The humour is broad, unsubtle and, in the final scene where a BBC studio fire is extinguished by urinating on it, crude. Contains just about every cliche about the traditional Australian pilgrimage to 'the old country', and every cliche about those rapacious, stuck up, whinging, Tory Brits. Would be acceptable to the British because of its strong cast of well known actors, and to Australians of that generation, who can 'get' the humour. Americans -- forget it. The language and jokes are in the Australian dialect of English and as such will be unintelligible.@@@1 -There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.

The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.@@@0 -Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second.@@@1 -Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.

In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...

"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10@@@0 -With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it.@@@1 -I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.@@@0 -This movie really kicked some ass. I watched it over and over and it never got boring. Angelina Jolie really kicked some ass in the movie, you should see the movie, you won't be disappointed. And another reason you should see the movie is because the guy from The X-Files is in it, David Duchovny.@@@1 -Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.

The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.

Not recommended.

xxx@@@0 -I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood.@@@1 -If you want to laugh like crazy, rent Cage. Cage is about two war heroes, Billy and Scott who are best friends. When Billy is shot in Vietnam, he is unable to fend for himself, so Scott takes him in.

I have never seen a movie with more gay references to the two main characters. Billy and Scott love to "wrestle" and Scott tells Billy that he is "still sore from last night," among other things.

Wonderful catch phrases like "Shut the sh!t up" and "Ping Pang Pong, cut the sh!t" will keep you laughing for hours. The native American guys that are supposed to be playing Mexican gang members are also top notch. As they say, it's "party time right now. Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba." I could go on forever, but just watch this movie and laugh your a$$ off. It was so funny I went out and bought the DVD for $5.99@@@0 -Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.@@@1 -I don't know what you guys are inhaling, but please stop. This movie was complete trash.

Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister was lovable, cute, sweet, loving, and extremely fun to watch. He had that innocence but at the same time, he was strong as well.

This new kid, Alex? Annoying as all hell! Just a blatant ripoff at trying to match Culkin's charm and grace, failing miserably at that.

The villains, complete crap. Harry and Marv, they were such an entertaining on screen team. They were comedic, they were humorous, and just made you really want to root for Culkin even more, which is what a good villain is suppose to do. These guys Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, absolutely PERFECT for those roles. On the other hand, in 3, we have 4 new idiots that just bicker and again, try to capitalize on the charisma and duo charm of the first villains. Not saying they were horrible, but they were not memorable or even really that entertaining. More on the corny side actually.

Then we got the actual movies. Part 1 and 2, classics. Memorable. Perfect to watch around Christmas and brings a wonderful Christmas feeling and brings out so many emotions. It makes you fall in love with the story, and care about the characters. Simply, memorable and close to being masterpieces. Part 3? Masterpiece of crap. Enough said.

All and all, I don't know why people like this. I think people really don't know what a good movie is anymore. Its a crappy sequel rip-off with more unrealistic traps and a stupid new main character kid that I wish the robbers would of at least beat the crap out of.

Run, run away from this garbage. And lets not even start with Part 4!@@@0 -David Duchovney creates a role that he was to replicate somewhat in Californication - the troubled talent. And it is a role he plays well.

This thriller starts off at a good speed and carries you through to the end. Timothy Hutton plays a fine villain and Angelina Jolie pouts. The story of a disgraced doctor finding his way into a criminal world is well scripted. Drug addiction and a desire for the sultry Jolie mix a heady cocktail. Unfortunately towards the end the story gets a little weaker and the relationships between villains and the FBI is muddled and rushed as if it was created only to develop the final scene. But, that aside, a movie worth seeing.@@@1 -Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.@@@0 -This film has a lot of raw potential. The script is sharp, the dialogue is (usually) excellent (though it could stand to lose the cheezy voice-overs), the direction and cinematography is surprisingly quite good, though some of the experimentation just doesn't work. The main problem here is David Duchovny. Once a geek-boy, always a geek-boy; and the sad, simple fact is that he's incapable of playing anything but Fox Mulder. He postures, he tries to be slick, he poses, he tries to be macho. In the end he just tries too hard. He overplays his character, he overspeaks his lines, and he's just outplayed in all ways by Timothy Hutton and Angelina Jolie, who are each in a class above him in terms of acting skill. Timothy Hutton was (as always) really good. There was a spotty moment or two where he over-dramatized his role, but you could tell he was having fun with it. He looked the part, and he became the character both physically and atmospherically. Angelina Jolie was also really good. She didn't have much of a role; in fact, I though she could have used a much stronger one...her character wasn't nearly developed enough, though she did remarkably well with what she had. And the chemistry between her and Hutton was apparent (gee, maybe that's why Uma left him...;) All in all, it was rough around the edges, but a solid effort by a good cast and great supporting roles. If David Duchovny hadn't ripped his role to pieces it would've been *that* much better. 7/10.@@@1 -I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!!@@@0 -I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.

Well directed, well acted and a good story.@@@1 -I loved the first two movies, but this movie was just a waste of time and money (for me and the studio). I'm still wondering why they made this horrible movie. The thing with the plastic gun and with the toy car, that can go into another house are ridiculous. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern in the first two movies were so funny, but the terrorists in this one are so stupid and not funny. Believe me this movie is just a waste of time.@@@0 -David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film@@@1 -Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.@@@0 -I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.

The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.

I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.@@@1 -while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...

so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...@@@0 -Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie.@@@1 -Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.

First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.

The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.

The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.

I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this!

So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.

0/5 stars@@@0 -Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars.@@@1 -I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.

The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.

But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?@@@0 -I was expecting this to be the same kind of schlock as the previous Modesty Blaise movie, which is why I left it unwatched for so long, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Far from being a succession of silly gun battles and car/boat chases, it was an almost thoughtful analysis of how a pretty girl gets to become as hard as nails, with nothing being overstated or over-rationalized.

It's likely that the budgetary constraints actually helped with that: less time and effort was spent on finding ever-stupider ways for stunt men to pretend to die, and more was dedicated to making the movie worth watching. Hell, the biggest gun battle takes place off screen -- and the scene where it is heard is all the better for that background noise, that adds to the suspense -- who's winning? Who's dying?

Alexandra Staden might not be as drop-dead gorgeous as Monica Vitti, but few are, and she certainly has every ounce of class and fire that's needed to make the character work -- and the shape of her face, her hair, and her tall, slender body could have been lifted straight from the comic-strip graphics.

Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau was the perfect choice for a Blaise bad-guy, in that he made the character interesting and enjoyable to watch -- even likable (and I doubt I'd consider taking on many brutal, psychopathic murderers as drinking buddies). I can't think of a single one of Hollywood's "former waiters" who could have pulled the role off that well.

Fortunately, Blaise baddies always die, in the end (no spoilers there!) That's a really good thing, because all the girls who would have spent their time swooning over such a disgustingly handsome and interesting hunk can now pragmatically settle for us ordinary Joes.@@@1 -This is the worst ripoff of Home Alone movies that I have EVER seen! Watch part 1 and two, but don't let anyone say that this is BETTER than the first two! I mean, really, you don't make a movie, then make a sequel with the same characters and actors, and then make another sequel with DIFFERENT characters and actors! I mean, it would have been OK if this wan't a "Home Alone" movie, but they DID make it a Home Alone movie. Culkin is too old now, so you're suppose to STOP making sequels! Goodness, this movie makes me SICK! Buy part 1 and 2.@@@0 -This is a good movie, although people unfamiliar with the Modesty Blaise comics and books may find it a little slow and lacking in action. For the Modesty fan, the movie will be very enjoyable, particularly because it is very faithful in its presentation of the Modesty Blaise "history". Peter O'Donnell is listed in the credits as "Creative Consultant" and the film makers must have actually paid attention to him as the plot follows quite closely the details that have been presented in the comic books over the years {although the events have been recast to modern days). The only thing that the true fan may find disappointing is that there is no Willie Garvin in the story. This lack of Willie is again just being faithful to the Modesty Blaise chronology since the movie takes place in the very early days of Modesty's career. Alexandra Staden makes a very believable young Modesty who actually looks a lot like Modesty is supposed to look. A welcome change from the travesty of the Monica Vitti portrayal of Modesty.@@@1 -I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.

This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.

Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself!

The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!@@@0 -For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film.@@@1 -In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.@@@0 -I was pleased to see that she had black hair! I've been a fan for about 30 years now and have been disgusted at the two earlier attempts to film the stories.

I was pleased that the screenwriters updated the period to include a computer, it didn't spoil it at all. In fact I watched the film twice in one day, a sure sign that it was up to standard. This is what I do with books that I like as well.

I thought all the characters were well depicted and represented the early days of Modesty Blaise extremely well as evinced in both book and comic strip. I would also have to disagree with a comment made by an earlier reviewer about baddies having to be ugly. Has he actually read the books?

I thought this was a very good film and look forward to sequels with anticipation.@@@1 -Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.@@@0 -I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English@@@1 -The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10@@@0 -As a long time fan of Peter O'Donnell's greatest creation, I watched this film on DVD with no great hopes of enjoyment; indeed I expected to be reaching in disgust for the remote control within fifteen minutes. But instead I thoroughly enjoyed this production, and I especially enjoyed and appreciated how the producers and director succeeded in telling the Modesty Blaise back story. They managed to avoid the trap of making a (bad) film version of the books we are all so familiar with, choosing instead to concentrate on a period in Modesty's life only alluded to in the novels.

As for the production values (and I am no student of cinematography!): yes, the film was filmed on a tight financial and time budget and maybe that shows... but does it spoil the viewer's enjoyment? In this case I think not. Instead we are introduced to one of the world's greatest literary heroines and given a taste of her capabilities.

In regard to the casting: because we in unfamiliar territory the only people who really matter are Modesty and (perhaps) Professor Lob. For me they were totally credible. Alexandra Staden, described by some as wooden, and too thin to be an action heroine, brought to the screen Modesty's poise and coolness; her technique (when martial arts were needed) but most importantly personified the integrity which is at the core of the Modesty Blaise canon.

OK, so we all know this film was produced to stake Miramax's claim to the Modesty Blaise character, it was made quickly and cheaply, BUT... I for one cannot wait to see the next production in this series by these producers - as long as they keep to the core values and characterisations of the original stories!@@@1 -'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.@@@0 -The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV.@@@1 -Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.

Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.@@@0 -While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.@@@1 -The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!

1/10@@@0 -Every once in a while, Eddie Murphy will surprise you.

In a movie like "the Golden Child", especially. This is a movie you'd figure would star maybe Harrison Ford or Kurt Russell or someone. But Eddie really does work; he's smart, he's funny, he's brave, kind, courteous, thrifty, clean and everything else a hero should be.

Having been chosen to secure a mystic child who holds the key to protecting the world from complete evil (embodied perfectly by Dance), Eddie goes from California, to Nepal and back, all while the beautiful Kee Nang (Lewis) wonders if he's all he says he is and a crazy old holy man (Wong, perfect as always) knows that he is.

It's exciting, breathtaking in spots, shocking and, of course, funny. Eddie is the only action hero I know who could begin a movie by making rude remarks behind some guy reading a porno magazine and end it with smart-aleck remarks about Ed McMahon.

No problem with this "Child": it's a "Golden" find.

Nine stars. Viva Nepal!@@@1 -This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that@@@0 -Recap: It's business as usual at Louche's casino in Tanger. The casino is about to close and prepares for a big transaction the next day. The owner Louche and some staff leave for the night, leaving Modesty in charge. Suddenly a troop of armed gangsters storm the casino, shooting wildly. Unknown to Modesty, they have already killed Louche, and are now after the money hidden in the vault. But no one present, and still alive, at the casino knows the code to open the vault. The vault itself is heavily booby trapped with explosives so the assailants can't blow the door as planned. Suddenly Modesty finds herself eye to eye with the gangsters' leader Miklos in a game of roulette with their lives in jeopardy.

Comments: This is a review written with no connection what so ever with other published media about Modesty Blaise, as I have neither seen nor read any of it. The first point I like to make is that this is slightly wrongfully classified. Foremost I thought this was a thriller with a battle of wits between Modesty and Miklos as the main plot. Sure, there are some bursts of action but they are not really an integral or important part of the story.

As already mentioned the main plot and the main suspense-filled scene, is the game between Modesty and Miklos. It's an innovative and intriguing way of revealing the background of a character, and in doing so much of the story takes place outside the casino at a much earlier time. Someone said that it is almost like a pilot for a TV-series, and the feeling is that it might indeed be used as such. But, I felt it was a much better way to introduce a character than many other have done. I was in no way disappointed in the lack of action, instead I enjoyed this game, the history much more than a simple action movie.

I think the two main stars, Alexandra Staden and Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau did very well. Staden especially portrays Modesty very well, and really carries this confident and talented character.

7/10@@@1 -This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.@@@0 -This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The "purists" should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was "stalling for time." I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other "reviewers" did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this "prequel" is a sign of what's to come!@@@1 -Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.@@@0 -Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars.@@@1 -Invasion of the Star Creatures would definitely be in the "so bad it's good" category if the film wasn't quite so sexist or racist. That it is such just makes it plain bad.

It has the same kind of hardline stereotypical sexism that you saw in Queen of Outer Space, and the kind of racist stereotypes (in this instance, Native Americans) that you would normally find in thirties & forties b-westerns. In terms of being non-funny, the same walking-through-the-cave gag is repeated well over ten times during the course of this fairly short movie. Ray does do one good impression of Jimmy Cagney (but can't make it work for two impressions of Cagney in a row, nor handle a Peter Lorre when he tries it). There really aren't any production values to speak of, as the "Star Creatures" make the Ro-Man from Robot Monster or Tor Johnson in Plan 9 from Outer Space look like creations of Industrial Light and Magic.

This film was definitely one of a vanguard of what you would have to call early independent cinema...not artsy enough for those theaters and not good enough for anything but the last feature of an all-night drive-in.

@@@0 -I enjoyed this film. It was a joy to see a version so close to the vision of Peter O'Donnell.

A number of people have disliked the film, but it has to be seen in context of the origin story that it is. The film uses flashback to show the young Modesty and the events that shaped her into the woman that she became. Before the Network. Before Willie Garvin.

The pace is a trifle slow, and for my taste not enough tension is developed in the present day scenes. However this is acceptable just to get such a faithful version.

If you like Modesty Blaise, you will enjoy it even with its faults, if you just want an action flick with car chases - forget it.

It has the feeling of being the first of a franchise, but as I have never seen it promoted anywhere, I suspect there will be no more to follow. Sadly.@@@1 -- Let me start by saying that I understand that Invasion of the Star Creatures was meant to be a parody of the sci-fi films of the 50s. I understand that none of it is to be taken seriously. The problem I have is that none of it works. A parody should be funny and this one just isn't. Not once during the entire runtime did I so much as crack a smile. In general, I am easily entertained, but I couldn't find a sliver of entertainment anywhere in Invasion of the Star Creatures.

- I knew I was in trouble right from the beginning. The two "stars" make their screen appearance with one of the lamest gags imaginable - a water hose they can't control that gets them both wet. These two come off as Bowery Boys wannabes. Why anyone would want to mime the act and persona of the Bowery Boys is beyond me. After the less than illustrious beginning, the movies goes on to feature comical chase sequences, dancing Indians, vegetable men, decoder rings, and other assorted unfunny bits. It's all just a complete waste of time.

- I bought this on the double feature DVD with Invasion of the Bee Girls. That movie is Academy Award winning stuff in comparison with Invasion of the Star Creatures.@@@0 -The best Modesty Blaise movie I have seen so far. It's like a good pilot for a TV-series. I even think it's a little bit "cult", like with a lite touch of Quentin Tarantino's magic, or something. They have caught a great deal of Modesty's character, but I admit missing Willy Garwin a bit. Even if i have read many comics and book by Peter O'donnell I'm not disappointed of this film, quite the opposite. Positive surprised of this story about Modesty and her childhood. I did not put my expectations so high, because of the bad movie from 1966. So I may have overrate this movie just a little. But if you like the comics and other storys about Modesty Blaise, you should definitely see this one! can't wait for a follow-up...@@@1 -Gloria Victor and Dolores Reed in space girl costumes.

I love 50 sci fi, I even love cheesy 50s sci fi, but this film is really, really bad. And not in a MST3K kinda way.

Virtually unwatchable as a couple of bozos do their best "hip cat" impression of Abott & Costello.

Chessecake can usually save cheesy sci fi, such as in "Cat Women On The Moon" but it can't in this case. This film requires a mute button and fast forward feature.

That said, I could watch Gloria and Dolores walk around the space ship for about an hour or so.@@@0 -I've seen this movie and I must say I'm very impressed. There are not much movies I like, but I do like this one. You should see this movie by yourself and comment it,because this is one of my most favorite movie. I fancy to see this again. Action fused with a fantastic story. Very impressing. I like Modesty's character. Actually she's very mystic and mysterious (I DO like that^^). The bad boy is pretty too. Well, actually this whole movie is rare in 'movieworld'. I considered about the vote of this movie, I thought this is should be a very popular movie. I guess wrong. It was ME who was very impressed about this movie, and I hope I'm not the only one who takes only the cost to watch this one. See and vote.@@@1 -This was one of those films that got a ton of play on the airwaves in the early 1970's, usually on the "4am Movie" or one time, on the 7:30 PM "Channel 6 Big Movie" and still another on Creature Double Feature.WHen local channels used to run movies as part of their local programming(mostly gone today in favor of infomercial time) It was of the time. A couple of low-rent Abbott and Costello wannabees(Frankie Ray and Robert Ball) are in a platoon of soldiers(half a dozen guys in Army Surplus remainders) who are sent on field maneuvers to look into some strange radiation, and wind up encountering extraterrestrials. They first go into Bronson Canyon to what would be later the famous Batcave on BATMAN, and encounter the remains of a dead "carrot monster". Later, in the cave they're chased by a living carrot creature-basically a guy in black suit and paper mache head, with sparkly things on it and ping-pong ball eyes. Two of them-complete geeks,Ray and Ball-are captured and wake up tied to tables and are being "examined" by space amazons-Dr Poona(nooo kidding!) and Professor Tanga who are stunningly beautiful and even moreso in their skimpy bikini "uniforms". We were too young at the time,to realize what later bondage and fetish scenarios this "examination" scene would more than suggest. Turns out that the two gals and their carrot monster, are stranded on earth with a ship that's well hidden and are trying to return to their world.

The film was made as a total comedy with varying degrees of taste but remember this was of the time when Eric Von Zipper and his crew from Frankie and Annette's films, were the height of B-film, drive-in comedy.So it only seemed a natural to jump on the bandwagon for some quick bucks.

For some reason I only thought I'd imagined seeing this film to start with. No, I really saw it. And when it was released on "restored" DVD I was assured in my memory. The comedy goes from mildly funny to just plain stupid, but whatever.The budget is non-existent, which, is a minor miracle when you think about it, that it even got made and we can talk about a "restored" version here and now-over 40 years later. The payoff is the girls who want to learn about "love" and "kissing" and, the upshot is the geeks-which all of us were- get the girls and love wins out. It's just goofy and silly and for the locations, has nostalgic significance.@@@0 -Having heard of Modesty Blaise before, but never having read a novel or a comic strip, my wife and I liked the film a lot. It delivered, in a captivating way, a good introduction to the character and her background.

Although it has some action flick elements, it is much more an intimate play, excellently written. Sadly, this is also, where a major drawback of the movie is revealed. An intimate play lives on the capabilities of its actors and unfortunately only half of the cast delivered. While Alexandra Staden did an excellent job as Modesty Blaise, her counterpart Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau - as the villain Miklos - did not. Smiling his way through the plot as if it is an extend toothpaste commercial, he fails to build up an atmosphere of anxiety that would have made the movie a masterpiece. The supporting cast is somehow similar, from some stereotyped gangsters and sluts to decent performances from Fred Pearson as Professor Lob and Eugenia Yuan as Irina.@@@1 -I appreciate a think positive feel good about yourself film, but this is too much. In the end they look like a bunch of loonies. This film is one of those finding yourself 70's plots, I know the film is made in 1980. A lot more of Clint and girl friend movie. This movie is a 3/10.@@@0 -There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.

Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.

The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.@@@1 -Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.@@@0 -First off; I'm a dedicated fan of Modesty's, and have been reading the comics since I was a child, and I have found the earlier movies about our heroine unsatisfying, but where they fail, this one ROCKS!

Well then, here we go: Ms Blaise is working for a casino, a gang of robbers comes along and she starts gambling for her friends lives. If the robber wins one round, she'll have to tell him about herself. If she wins two times in a row, one of the staff members goes free. (Sounds stupid, yeah, well, I'm not that good at explaining either..) ;)

She tells him about growing up in a war zone, without parents or friends, about her helping an old man in the refugee camp and how they escape, living by nature's own rules. They hunt for food, and he teaches her to read and fight. As they approach civilization they get caught up in a war, and as they are taken for rebellions, they are being shot at and the old man dies, which leaves her to meet the city by herself.

Then she meets the man who's casino she's now working for, and there the story ends.

What is to follow is that there's an awesome fight and the line's are totally cool. Alexandra Staden is a TERRIFIC Modesty Blaise! Just as modest and strong, graceful and intellectual as the comic-one.

Feels awkward though, too hear Modesty speak with a slightly broken accent, but that's not relevant since the comic book- blaise can't speak out loud, but certainly must have a somewhat existing accent. (Not to mention that it's weird everybody's speaking English in the Balkan..)

The acting is really good, even the child who personifies the young Blaise must have a applaud!

My favorite part must be where she rips up her dress to kick the stupid robber's ass! Totally awesome! :D I can't wait until the real adventure begins in the next movie/s!

Watch it, you won't be disappointed!@@@1 -Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke – Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.

So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?

No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film – or at least tries to be.

Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.

Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.

And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question …

4 out of 10@@@0 -Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story.@@@1 -Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.@@@0 -I first saw this movie on television some years ago and frankly loved it. Charles Dance makes one of the most terrifying villains anyone can imagine. His sophistication is such a perfect contrast to the crudely good hero. I have never been much of an Eddie Murphy fan but find his irritating portrayal here a winner: a bit of "Axel Foley Through the Looking Glass". Charlotte Lewis is, to utilize a hackneyed phrase but the only one applicable, luminously gorgeous. Some scenes are wonderfully created: the dream sequence, the bird, the silly fight scenes, and the climactic confrontation. Through it all Murphy is the modern man suddenly dropped into an oriental myth, a stunned and quieter version of Kurt Russell in his oriental fantasy romp. Like that movie we have James Hong, the incomparable actor whose scenes, however short, raise the quality even of Derek. Since 1955 Hong has defined the fine supporting actor, the "class act" of his profession. "The Golden Child" is silly; it is not perfect; but it has so many redeeming features that it is an enjoyable and amusing fantasy, well worth watching. After four years I have seen "The Golden Child" again; I enjoyed it even more! It truly is great fun.@@@1 -This is a bit of a first for me, the first time I have ever been disappointed in a Tim Burton film. POTA isn't a bad film (great sets, costumes and the odd great performance) but it could have been made by any off-the-shelf hollywood director. The pacing was very odd, the last third was just spent waiting for the film to end, by myself and the cast. Tim Roth was excellent, probably the only pleasure in the film. Come back Tim.@@@0 -Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a "Creative Consultant." The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!@@@1 -Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.@@@0 -Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.

I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.

Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.

Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.

The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.

I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made.@@@1 -This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt.

The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla.

Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.@@@0 -If you are already a fan of Peter O'Donnell's wonderful Modesty Blaise books from the sixties, you will really enjoy this movie. If you have ever seen the 1966 "Modesty Blaise" film, forget it! That was camp. This is the real Modesty Blaise. The story and character are both true to the Modesty that fans of the books know and love. It's a long way from Joe Losey's 1966 travesty, and it takes our Modesty quite seriously. Alexandra Staden is quite good and believable in the part, and yes, we do get to see her kick butt. chuckle

This is likely meant to be the first movie of a series and as such it serves to introduce Modesty, her childhood and her days with Lob.

Since Peter O'Donnell was the creative consultant on the movie, everything really rings true. Even the story O'Donnell told of how he conceived the character is just as he told it. Having read all the books, I enjoyed the movie even more for that.

Now that Miramax has kept their option on the property by having Quentin Tarrentino make this film, I do hope to see more of the Modesty stories asap. Especially as the wonderful character of Willie Garvin makes Modesty's character really come alive. To that end, I really hope the film does well in Europe. I have no idea if Miramax intends to ever distribute the DVD in the USA. I suspect it might not do that well in the USA in general distribution. I wonder how Miramax decides where and how to distribute it's films.

In the story, Modesty is in her early 20's, working at Louche's casino in Tangier. The flashback sequences are artfully done and take Modesty from about 9 years old, through her teens up to her current age in the movie - about 21-22, I'd guess. I really don't think there's a "perfect actress" for Modesty. For many of us Modesty fans, she's much too powerful a presence in our imaginations already. Alexandra Staden is credible. She is very slim, graceful and poised. She has lots of closeups. She has a great face - one that sticks in your mind well after the movie is over. According to O' Donnell's illustrator, Romero, Modesty has rather a fuller figure than Staden, but I'm willing to overlook that. If Staden continues in the role, I think she will mature into it - just as Modesty grows more powerful and skilled as she gets older. Staden already conveys Modesty's humor and absolute assurance very well. Go ahead and rent this movie, it's not like anything else you've seen and even though it was directed by Scott Spiegel, it is full of Tarrentino touches, great camera moves, lighting and well-done action sequences.@@@1 -This movie is so bad that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the writers, producers and director? How on earth did they get funding for this abomination? The plot is laughable, the acting is poor at best, the story... What story? The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps repeating itself until you want to turn it off.

I guess I'm the biggest looser for not turning this stupid movie off after the first minute.

*** SPOLER ALERT ***

I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 30 seconds...

I give it 1 out of 10 because it's the lowest grade IMDb has to offer.

Do yourself a favour: See an Uwe Boll movie instead... twice... it's more worthy of your time.@@@0 -Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out "stop wasting my time!" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.@@@1 -I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.@@@0 -magellan33 said: "You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member."

I assume, then, that you never heard of "Topper".

Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.

This was the kind of program that had "Not Gonna Make It" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp.@@@1 -I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.

As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.

Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)@@@0 -I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.@@@1 -I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.

I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.

I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.

I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.

The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.

It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.@@@0 -This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see.@@@1 -Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.

Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.

Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)

It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.@@@0 -Short synopsis

This film opens with soldiers being released from the company of men. One of them pursues another with a weird scheme the other repeatedly refuses. Later they both get trapped in an office building in which they want to crack a safe during the Christmas holidays. Hostility turns into playful banter and then into a desperate fight for survival (during the bantering they lose all drinkable liquids, so it is really serious). With exposed, well built and well oiled torsos they ram a hole into a wall and finally manage to escape – only to find out that they have been betrayed and set up by women. One gets caught, the other remains free and is not given away by his companion. A last encounter, a last light for a cigarette, adieu l'ami, farewell, friend.

I found it hard not to see closet homosexuals in the two main characters, played by classical he-man superstars Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. They are obviously attracted to each other, their treatment of women is abominable and marked by contempt throughout. The whole story seems to have a strong symbolic undertow, a little like Deliverance. It is also very stylish. The safe the two men want to crack is in a – for the time – ultra modern glass and aluminum tower. It is the seat of a publicity firm, so there are many fancy posters and wall coverings around. The wardrobe is also very good. The ultra stylish Citroen DS (maybe the most modern and elegant car of all times) features large in this movie – perhaps a subtle kind of product placement.

I can recommend this movie for the actor's performances alone. Delon and Bronson are really sharing the top billing, in a manner that struck me as very fair and sporting. Both do a considerable amount of acrobatics. I have never seen Bronson better than here, he really acts - and speaks French throughout, with a heavy accent buy very passably indeed. And it is certainly the man himself we hear. (So the French language version is highly recommended). The police inspector who pursues the two is played by on of my favorite Franch character actors, Bernard Fresson who was Gene Hackman's partner in French Connection II. He is the best brainy police inspector I know. Also very good is former child actress Brigitte Fossey as the young ingénue who, as it turns out, is not so Innocent as it first seems.

Anyone who expects the „old in-an-out" of classical heist movies might be disappointed with this film. For those with a little patience this will be a rewarding experience, full of novel and original ideas and directorial quirks, although it my be a little too brutal and sadistic for its own sake.@@@1 -It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10@@@0 -Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system.

The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids… try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot.

A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions.@@@1 -This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.

In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that:

1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again

2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script

3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted.

Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.@@@0 -This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see.@@@1 -Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece.@@@0 -Whenever I see most reviews it's called 'a misfire for Eddie Murphy'. These critics want to take a look at some of the stuff he's doing these days, and maybe soften their stance in retrospect... "The Golden Child" is not highbrow entertainment, but thanks to some of the cast it breaths new life into old clichés, and gives Murphy one of his best roles. I don't understand the pervading lack of 'love' for its efforts, at all. Perhaps it was released at a time when the establishment had grown weary of knockabout, thrill-a-minute adventures? Steven Spielberg started it with Indiana Jones; it's unfair to make this one a scapegoat when what is possibly its biggest sin is also utterly harmless. There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to capitalise on trends.

Yes it's silly, but even an occasional observer should be able to understand that 'ridiculous' is where Hollywood's idea of mysticism begins and ends. What's more important than believability with a story like this is that the audience have entertaining tour guides on hand to show them the mysterious sights. Michael Ritchie and Eddie Murphy fit the bill for this capacity just fine. My advice to you is to buy the ticket and take the ride.@@@1 -Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.

If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.@@@0 -Farewell Friend aka Adieu L'Ami/Honour Among Thieves isn't perfect but it is a neat and entertaining thriller that sees mismatched demobbed French Algerian War veterans Alain Delon and Charles Bronson trapped in the same basement vault, one to return stolen bonds, the other to clean out the two million in wages sitting there over the Christmas weekend. Naturally things aren't quite that simple even after they open the vault, leading to some neat twists and turns. On the debit side, there's a very bizarre striptease scene in a car park, Bronson has a very irritating Fonzie-like catchphrase he uses at the most inopportune moments, Brigitte Fossey, sporting perhaps the most hideously misconceived hairstyle of the 60s (it makes her look like a bald woman whose wig is blown back off the top of her head by a high wind), is something of a liability – her "I'll cook spaghetti! I'll learn to make love well! I'll read Shakespeare!" speech is hysterical in all the wrong ways – and it's a shame about the horrible last line/shot, but otherwise this is a surprisingly entertaining and unpretentious number that's worth checking out if you can find a decent print.

Cinema Club's UK DVD only offers the English soundtrack, but since Delon voices himself and the rest of the cast are fairly well dubbed that's no great problem, especially since the widescreen transfer is pretty good quality.@@@1 -We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.@@@0 -A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.

Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.

This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.

ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.

One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.

Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.

That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.

Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.

FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch!

Highly recommended.@@@1 -Contrary to most other comments about "Syriana" on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.

In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so "story-lines" at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.

Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.

This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.@@@0 -Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100.@@@1 -I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.

I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.

For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.

see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.@@@0 -Nora is a single mother-of-two who still wants to live the life of a young artist in the 1970s, as do her friends, a group of writers, singers and actors. The ‘free love' philosophy isn't quite out of the system – and Nora didn't count on falling in love, particularly with a junkie. Hazlehurst won her first of two AFI Awards in the space of four years for her amazing portrayal of Nora, who makes sure she does the right thing by her children, but falls in love with junkie Javo (Friels) at the same time. Garner – who would later costar in films such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES and STRANGE PLANET – is well-cast as Nora's pre-pubescent daughter, and Caton (perhaps in readiness for his role as host of the lifestyle program HOT PROPERTY in 2000???) appears as a bearded painter. Early effort by director Cameron is a winner; he went on to make the award-winning miniseries MY BROTHER JACK among his later projects. But it's the stunning delivery by Hazlehurst which brings to life the intelligent, searching script, based on Helen Garner's award-winning novel.@@@1 -OK Hollywood is not liberal.

Obviously I'm lieing because it is. Im a conservative but the politics i will leave out of my opinion of the movie. This movie was anti bush, anti middle east , anti big oil propaganda but that is not why it was bad.

Fist off i will give credit where credit is due. i saw this film opening night because i happen to like these kinds of films and am a political science major in collage. The cinematography was excellent and the acting was as far as i could tell very good.

The plot was impossible for me to decode however. I have been tested and have an IQ of 138 but no matter how hard i tried there was no way i could piece together the story line of the movie and what characters where doing what.

The story and scene sequence was totally incoherent and poorly organized.

Unless this is one of those movies that is meant to be watch many times to get the full depth pf the story, which it very well may be, i have no idea exactly what was going on.

Which makes sense because if you want to make a political argument and not receive any criticism then make your argument impossible to critique! If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S.@@@0 -Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, "Monkey Grip" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former "Play School" and "Better Homes & Gardens" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.

10/10@@@1 -This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.

The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.

The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.@@@0 -I definitely recommend reading the book prior to watching the film. This book won National Book Council Award in 1978 and is a very gripping read (pun not intended). It's not too difficult to read for those out there that don't read often so don't be afraid! The book seems to capture the passion of the relationships more so than the movie and the movie will make more sense after reading the book. Having grown up in Melbourne I could really relate to this book and movie. Very few Australian female writers were around the in the 70's therefore very little is documented about the way of life for a women in an urban city in Australia during this era or class. It's a precious piece of Melbourne history. It's a shame that it is documented as some sort of 80's soft porn movie. It's far from that and as the other reviewer has mentioned please do not read the DVD jacket, it does not represent what the movie is about at all. Those that rent the movie based on this description will only be disappointed. Just remember this movie was made in 1982, so don't expect the Hollywood over dramatization that they seem to incorporate these days. This is what I like about it. It's also great seeing Noni Hazlehurst in this role, she is just fantastic as Nora and it's great watching her really acting, for if you're close to my age you will best remember her for her stints on Playschool and Better Homes and Gardens. Who knew she hid this talent? This movie will give you an entirely new impression of her. A classic Australian Story!@@@1 -Exceedingly complicated and drab. I'm a bright guy, but this was just too much for a tired brain. It would really benefit from a few early clues as to who these people are and what they are doing. Probably better for the US market. GC himself hinted that this alone did not supply his Oscar and you can see why.

Still the sand dunes are pretty. The nail pulling is nasty. The attorneys drunk dad is a mystery. The cricket is good to see.

Very difficult to write the required ten lines on this, despite it being over 2 hours long. Thank heavens they shortened it. Admittedly we don't get to the pictures much, but the last film we saw, Walk the Line, was 10 times better and I don't really like Johnny Cash. My wife says George still looks good with the beard and a few extra pounds so there's that.....am I nearly there yet ?

How about now@@@0 -If Jean Renoir's first film "Whirlpool of Fate" first takes us into the world of the countryside, the rivers, the lives of the peasantry that he will continue to explore, it seems only fitting that his second film deals for the most part with the wealthy and the privileged, the upper classes and those who are trying to claw their way upwards. Put the characters from the first two films together and you have the seeds of his great "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game." This is beautifully filmed, with the restless camera making full use of the amazingly huge apartments and backstage areas that dominate the film's interiors, and the acting though frequently overwrought offers some great moments as well, particularly from Werner Krauss' Muffat. But the glamorous and sultry Ms. Hessling, who at first appears as if she might give Louise Brooks a run for her money in vampishness, never goes beyond a one note, selfish harlot portrayal. Perhaps this is in part a problem with the script, which does seem to mostly go for high points and outraged emotions; not having read the novel I'm not really clear on whether the choices were well-made or not.

Still, the differences between Nana's suitors are well-drawn, and I particularly liked the relationship between Muffat and Jean Angelo's Vandeuvres -- the tragic understandings that each seems to have of his ultimate fate and their sympathy with each other, particularly in the scene at the bottom of the enormous staircase where Vandeuvres warns Muffat, and we wonder if violence will erupt -- this and other gleanings of the ridiculousness of the idle rich help give the film the depth it has.

Far from his greatest achievement, and for me probably just shy overall of "Whirlpool of Fate", this is still well worth seeing for Renoir fans or those interested in silent cinema generally.@@@1 -I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie "comes together" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.@@@0 -This is the first Jean Renoir Silent film I have watched and perhaps rightly so since it is generally regarded to be his best, besides being also his first major work. Overall, it is indeed a very assured and technically accomplished film which belies the fact that it was only Renoir’s sophomore effort. For fans of the director, it is full of interesting hints at future Renoir movies especially THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946) and THE GOLDEN COACH (1952) – in its depiction of a lower class femme fatale madly desired by various aristocrats who disgrace themselves for her – but also THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – showing as it does in one sequence how the rowdy servants behave when their masters' backs are turned away from them – and FRENCH CANCAN (1955) – Nana is seen having a go at the scandalous dance at one point. Personally, I would say that the film makes for a respectable companion piece to G.W. Pabst’s PANDORA’S BOX (1928), Josef von Sternberg’s THE BLUE ANGEL (1930) and Max Ophuls’ LOLA MONTES (1955) in its vivid recreation of the sordid life of a courtesan.

Having said all that, the film was a resounding critical and commercial failure at the time of its release – a “mad undertaking” as Renoir himself later referred to it in his memoirs which, not only personally cost him a fortune (he eventually eased the resulting financial burden by selling off some of his late father’s paintings), but almost made him give up the cinema for good! Stylistically, NANA is quite different from Renoir’s sound work and owes a particular debt to Erich von Stroheim’s FOOLISH WIVES (1922), a film Renoir greatly admired – and, on a personal note, one which I really ought to revisit presto (having owned the Kino DVD of it and the other von Stroheims for 4 years now). Anyway, NANA is certainly not without its flaws: a deliberate pace makes itself felt during the overly generous 130 minute running time with some sequences (the horse race around the mid-point in particular) going on too long.

The overly mannered acting style on display is also hard to take at times – particularly that of Catherine Hessling’s Nana and Raymond Guerin-Catelain’s Georges Hugon (one of her various suitors)…although, technically, they are being their characters i.e. a bad actress (who takes to the courtesan lifestyle when she is booed off the stage) and an immature weakling, respectively. However, like Anna Magnani in THE GOLDEN COACH, Hessling (Renoir’s wife at the time, by the way) is just not attractive enough to be very convincing as “the epitome of elegance” (as another admirer describes her at one stage) who is able to enslave every man she meets. Other notables in the cast are “Dr. Caligari” himself, Werner Krauss (as Nana’s most fervent devotee, Count Muffat), Jean Angelo (as an initially skeptical but eventually tragic suitor of Nana’s) and future distinguished film director Claude Autant-Lara (billed as Claude Moore and also serving as art director here) as Muffat’s close friend but who is secretly enamored with the latter’s neglected wife!

The print I watched – via Lionsgate’s “Jean Renoir 3-Disc Collector’s Edition” – is, for the most part, a lovingly restored and beautifully-tinted one which had been previously available only on French DVD. Being based on a classic of French literature (by Emile Zola, no less), it cannot help but having been brought to the screen several times and the two most notable film versions are Dorothy Arzner’s in 1934 (with Anna Sten and Lionel Atwill and which I own on VHS) and Christian-Jaque’s in 1955 (with Martine Carol and Charles Boyer, which I am not familiar with).@@@1 -This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up.

Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three.

And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching.

I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman.@@@0 -OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again.@@@1 -Simply put: the movie is boring. Cliché upon cliché is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.

All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.@@@0 -It is a great movie. i sow that some people think that this might not be based on a true story. No matter this !!, the movie is great, and all u can think is not why a balloon with a mermaid on it ends up flying in the mermaid town and so on, instead thinking that "a little girl's wish came true", and this means that all our peaceful dreams will come true if we trust in us, and do all in this world to make them true. The little girl (Desi - in the movie), and her mom, were the best actors i've been seen in a long time. Good for they, for all actors, all for the director. If someone can tell them this, please tell them, "A 25 year guy from Romania says thank you for making this movie".@@@1 -Seldom do I give up on a movie without seeing the entire show. This is particularly true when I have rented it on DVD. Syriana was one in which I did give up. Half way through I turned it off in bored disgust.

This movie is disjointed, boring, confusing and lackluster. The acting was dry and without credible portrayals. The general plot was good but developed in such an insipid and boring fashion that it failed to grasp my attention or interest. The multiple sub plots often failed to connect to each other and seemed more like random stories than an actual connected plot. Too bad such a serious subject and such great actors could create such a flop. I cannot imagine this movie receiving any nominations much less an award.@@@0 -The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look.@@@1 -Spoilers I guess.

The absolutely absurd logic of the ending ruins the entire movie. I just couldn't get over it. And what is wrong with Mark Wahlberg's character? If I suddenly found myself crashed-landed on a planet full of talking apes, I'd be all like, " AAAAhhhhHHH!!! Run for your lives! The monkeys have inherited the Earth!" But he's all like, "talking apes, okay. Next?" That's pretty jaded I'd say. He must run into even stranger things on a regular basis. Besides that, this is Rick Baker's best work yet. This film is a true testament to how far we've come in the monkey makeup field. 3/10.@@@0 -i just saw this movie on TV..

i've lost my dad when i was young and this movie surely did touch me..

i can feel the lost that the little girl Desi felt..

the feeling of wanting to see her father again..

wanting to talk to him..

or at least given the chance to say goodbye..

and i'm so touched with the letter that was wrote back to her..

saying that her father read her letter, and sent it back to someone to reply her and buy her a present because there isn't a shop in heaven..

it just lets me feel that miracles do exist..@@@1 -Syriana swept the critics upon release and everything seemed to be raving about it. I suppose it's one of those films that is intensely intelligent...so intelligent that I think you need to be well versed in the oil industry and a politically brilliant mind. I don't consider myself unintelligent, I've been studying politics since my early teens and I enjoy an intelligent film but for the most part unless it's a documentary films are meant to be primarily entertaining as well as have a message. Syriana tried to be strictly intelligent and it does turn some people away. I would even go so far as to say that those who rave about it and insist it's a 10/10 are lying because they think they look better. This film was the most confusing, senseless, mindless dribble I have seen in awhile...Especially considering the critical acclaim, the Oscar nods, and the cast. Screenplay writer Stephen Gaghan has disappointed me yet again. His horribly written Havoc preceded this film and I think he's just trying way too hard. I can't believe he was offered the opportunity to write the Da Vinci Code screenplay. On top of that Gaghan directed the film which made it an absolute mess. I had no idea who anyone was, why things were happening, who was who and what was what. It was a disaster.

Because I don't really know who anyone was I can only mention the actors and what I thought of their performances because despite the horrendously complicated script the actors did alright. George Clooney plays C.I.A. field agent and assassin I think?? Bob Barnes. Clooney has never been a favorite of mine but lately he's managed to churn out some decent performances and this seemed to be a pretty good performance on his part. Barnes was a complex character with a sordid history and if I knew what was going on with him I would have really enjoyed his character. Matt Damon plays Bryan Woodman and he is rather bland and always looks like a deer in the headlights which I can understand his confusion after reading this script and then trying to perform it. Amanda Peet plays his wife and she does well in the few scenes she is given. Christopher Plummer makes a cameo appearance as someone doing something. I like Plummer and love seeing him show up even if he doesn't get top billing anymore.

The cast is intense if only the story made sense. I'd like to exact quote the description of plot on IMDb. "A missile disappears in Iran, but the CIA has other problems: the heir to an Emirate gives an oil contract to China, cutting out a US company that promptly fires its immigrant workers and merges with a small firm that has landed a Kazakhstani oil contract. The Department of Justice suspects bribery, and the oil company's law firm finds a scapegoat. The CIA also needs one when its plot to kill the Emir-apparent fails. Agent Bob Barnes, the fall guy, sorts out the double cross. An American economist parlays the death of his son into a contract to advise the sheik the CIA wants dead. The jobless Pakistanis join a fundamentalist group. All roads start and end in the oil fields." WHAT!?!? Say who now?? Syriana might be the thinking man's movie but it bored me to tears and no matter how hard I tried to stay with it I eventually surrendered and turned it off after an hour and a half and you couldn't have bribed me enough to get me to finish it. I suppose if you want to form an opinion than by all means watch it but I promise you someone looking for entertainment or an enjoyable film will be asleep in the first half hour. 1/10@@@0 -I didn't know the real events when I sat down to watch this, just the fact that this was based upon a true story. After the death of the kid's father, Rhonda tries to help her daughter Desiree(... I did not know anyone actually named their offspring that) cope with the loss. This is really made for children, as is often the case with "family" flicks(with that said, go ahead and get everyone together for a viewing, though I'd keep teenagers out of it, unless you're sure they're gonna buy the concept), but it doesn't downplay the sting that the death of a parent is, and it doesn't really talk down to anyone. The plot is sufficiently interesting, and moves along well enough. Acting varies, with the excellent Burstyn outshining most of her fellow cast, Mathis following that pretty well, and Ferland and her peers(with a few exceptions) being the least convincing of the bunch(and frankly, they're irritating; then again, I'm not really in the intended audience for this thing). The editing and cinematography are standard, and certainly not less than that. While humor is limited to a handful of amusing lines or so, the tone is not an unpleasant one. There is an intense scene or two in this. I recommend this to fans of these types of movies. 7/10@@@1 -Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.

Robi Chernitsky@@@0 -The little girl Desi is so adorable... I cant think of a more beautiful story then this one here. It will make you cry, laugh, and believe. Knowing that this was based on a true story just made me gasp and it also made me realize that there are nice people out there. Great cast and an overall great movie.@@@1 -Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.

I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.

If you don't like America you won't like this film.@@@0 -A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.

Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.

Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.

Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.

Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress.@@@1 -This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen, everything about it is weak and incoherent. The acting is absurd, the costumes even crummier and the story is non-existent. This 'poverty row' sword and adventure film was meant to capture some of the success that "Beastmaster" and "Conan" enjoyed but it doesn't give us any reason to follow along. The lead character is tepid and dull, he can't even fight with a sword and the sword is from the 16th Century. All the action sequences are like that, slow and unrealistic, not to mention the castle and the horribly dated music playing whenever they are riding a horse. Don't even bother with this crap.@@@0 -And look how a true story, "... with a little help of it's friends..." : a welldone and touching script, a good directing and a surprising great acting from a bunch of "no-name" actors, especially from the 4-yr-old Jodelle Ferland, becomes a must seen movie. 9/10@@@1 -I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.

Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.@@@0 -What an inspiring movie, I laughed, cried and felt love. For a true story,it does give you hope and that miracles do happen. It has a great cast. Ellen Burstyn, Samantha Mathis, Jodelle Ferland(she's 4 or 5yrs. old) what a actress. Its on Showtime. A Must See Movie!! :)=@@@1 -I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell.@@@0 -This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.@@@1 -Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation… or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat …um…discriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either.@@@0 -My family and I have viewed this movie often over the years. It is clean, wholesome, heartbreaking and heartwarming. Showing us the compassion between two families of two countries thousands of miles apart and by the most uncanny of coincidences, it's almost as if the hand of God had to be intervening.

5 yo Jodelle Micah Ferland who plays Desi the heart stricken little girl, does a magnificent job of acting her part, and for me she was the Priam choice for the lead role.

All in all, a 10 out of 10. There are no downsides to this sweet human story. Children of all ages will tearfully, then joyfully watch this and it will bring the viewing family together with smiles and good feelings.@@@1 -This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.

Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.

Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film.@@@0 -What a lovely heart warming television movie. The story tells of a little five year old girl who has lost her daddy and finds it impossible to cope. Her mother is also very distressed ..only a miracle can alleviate their unhappiness.Which all viewers hope will materialise. Samantha Mathis is brilliant as the little girl's mum ,as she was as the nanny in" Jack and Sarah",worth watching if you like both Samantha Mathis and happy; year tear jerking movies! Ellen Burstyn is, as, always a delightful grandmother in this tender and magnificently acted movie. Jodelle Ferland (the little five year old) is charming and a most convincing young actress. The film is based on a true story which makes it so touching."Mermaid" is a tribute to the milk of human kindness which is clearly illustrated and clearly is still all around us in this difficult world we live in. "Mermaid" gives us all hope ,by realising that there a lot of lovely people in the world with lot's of love to give. James Robson Glasgow Scotland U.K.@@@1 -I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo.@@@0 -What are the odds of a "Mermaid" helium balloon traveling from Yuba City, Ca.(on Nov 8th,1993) and landing 4 Days later,(on Nov. 12) in MERMAID, Prince Edward Island, Canada.(Approx. 4000 miles). This is a great movie. It is based on a true story. This movie helps not only children cope with losses, but older people as well. Hope everyone will enjoy it!!! Rhonda@@@1 -DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.@@@0 -I loved this movie. I totally disagree with some (negative) critiques that I've read over the years. This was a great vehicle for Eddie Murphy! He appeared to have a great time with his part as Chandler Jarrell and he should never care about what the critics say, if he had fun doing it – and most of his audience enjoyed it! And, it WAS fun to watch as it combined some great fantasy tension with Mr. Murphy's great comedic style. You have to keep in mind that 'Golden Child' is a 'fantasy' film – just an imaginative work of magic and wonder amidst the 'real' world. During the time this film was released, I was working in a video rental store. This was one of the most popular with all our customers. Every single time, we put this one up on our monitor, ALL the copies we had went out fast with wait-list requests that kept it on the queue for months! Everyone who rented it loved it! I was the resident film critic and all my regular customers would ask my opinion before they rented – this was one of my favorites and I knew the taste of my customers so I highly recommended this one to most of them. I really feel that this film is a Sleeper – it may not have done too well at the box office – due to very poor marketing – but it hit a high in the video rental and purchase market later! (YES, I did buy this film for my own video library!). I adored the little boy who played the 'Golden Child' – J. L. Reate - but after looking at his profile in IMDb, I noticed that he never did any more films. That is sad, because he definitely had an on-screen aura and could have continued with a film career. I also adored Victor Wong, who played the Old Man (I LOVED him in his part as 'Egg Shen' in 'Big Trouble in Little China' - 1986). At any rate, this was a great film. The only drawbacks that didn't seem to fit with the theme were some of the parts that got a bit more 'adult' in nature – such as 'Chandler's rather sexual remarks about the serpent lady that was presented to him as a silhouette. It was funny, but it still was out of sync. OK, so there were a few suggestive gratuitous scenes – those were put in for the mind-set of the day perhaps. This was still an adventurous and escapist type of film which we do need today to get away from all the hard core reality and depressing fluff that we are hit with from Hollywood. Now that's Entertainment!@@@1 -Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.

It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.@@@0 -this movie has a great message,a impressive cast, ellen burstyn, samantha mathis, jodelle ferland( was 4 years old when she made this movie) ellen burstyn and jodelle ferland have both been nominated for best actress in a tv drama at the up-coming emmy awards in new york, peter masterson-director- has been nominated best director tv drama at the emmy awards also. april 1, 2001, jodelle ferland 'Won', best actress in a tv drama, at the young artist awards, in studio city, ca. i can see why they have 3 nominations. mermaid is a true story, during the cridits they have the real family on the set, something you don't see often. you can find mermaid at all blockbuster video stores. do watch it,you'll be glad you did.@@@1 -...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.

- SPOILERS AHEAD -

Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...

The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include:

- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.

- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.

- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.

- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.

... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!@@@0 -OK, so I don't watch too many horror movies - and the reason is films like 'Dark Remains'. I caught this on (a surprisingly feature-filled) DVD and it scared me silly. In fact the only extra I think the DVD was missing was a pair of new pants.

However, the next day I was telling someone about it when I realised I'd only really seen about 10% of it. The rest of the time I'd been watching the pizza on my coffee table - nervous that my girlfriend would catch me if I actually covered my eyes. The few times I DID brave watching the screen I jumped so hard that I decided not to look up again.

The film-making is solid and the characters' situation was really compelling. The simplicity of the film is what really captured my jump-button - it's merely a woodland, a cabin and a disused jail - and a LOT of darkness. Most surprising to me was the fact that while this was clearly not a multi-million dollar production, the make-up effects really looked like it was! Also, it's obvious this is a film made by someone with a great love of film-making. The sound design and the music really made use of my surround system like many Hollywood movies have never done. I noticed on-line that this film won the LA Shriekfest - a really major achievement, and I guess that the festival had seen the filmmakers' clear talent - and probably a great deal more of this movie than I managed to.

Turn up the sound, turn off the lights, and, if you want to keep your girlfriend - order a pizza.@@@1 -This sword-&-sorcery story of an appallingly brutal and callous "hero" vanquishing an evil king is worthless in almost every detail. The acting is horrible from the leads to the supporting roles. The leering, gloating glee with which the director shows the hero smearing blood around is absolutely disgusting; nor is it redeemed by any justice to his cause, since he is as bad as the people he's fighting. Z-movie editing is abundant, including a scene where a character "dies" from a sword thrust that very obviously missed completely!

The movie is clearly banking on the charms of the female leads, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson, who are paraded around mostly naked throughout the movie. As a 20-something male, I will not pretend that female flesh on the screen doesn't attract me. But the treatment of their characters is so degrading and the sex scenes so casual and joyless, that I couldn't enjoy even this aspect of the movie.

Most cheesy movies of this era are at least somewhat redeemed by a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek feel (the sequel is better in this regard), but DEATHSTALKER seems to take itself completely seriously as heroic fantasy. No way! Avoid at all costs!

Rating: 1/2 out of ****.@@@0 -I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features.@@@1 -Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!

There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!

Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand "enjoyably bad films" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!

4/10@@@0 -Although I was in this movie playing the part of Sheriff Hodges, it still managed to make me jump in several places and believe me I'm NOT that easy. You might say that I'm biased about the film, and, OK, I am, but I didn't see the finished product until 12/27/2006 and was extremely pleased. I'm not a Horror film fan as such but love the old "B" movies and black and white Sci Fi films. This movie will make you "think" you know when something is going to happen, then it doesn't, then it does. It will keep you completely off balance. I would suggest watching the movie first then the director's notes and special features. It is so well written, directed and filmed and I can tell you personally that it was a real joy to work with this cast and crew. I sincerely hope to be part of Brian and Laurence's future projects.@@@1 -This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout.

All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...@@@0 -This movie scared the crap out of me! I have to admit that I spent most of the film watching through my fingers but what I saw was really scary. I screamed out loud two or three times during the show.

Film-making-wise my favorite aspects were the sound and photography. The sound was particularly great and the setting was really creepy beautiful. I read somewhere that it's some weird husband and wife team that made it. For some reason that makes this even stranger for me.

If you enjoy the jumps and jitters of scary movies than this one is for you! Very suspenseful and a great movie to rent with a bunch of friends who love to watch movies curled up on a sofa screaming like little girls!@@@1 -Woosh…! Man… What can I say...?

The opening-scene, maybe? We see a bunch of mongoloid-barbarians with bad make-up jump off the walls of some ruins. They sneak around and attack some dude with a scantily clothed captive girl. The dude runs off, the mongoloids follow him and one of them stays behind seemingly to rape the girl, but instead he exposes one of her breasts and kidnaps her. Then, the dude (still on the run) sees a horse and tries to steal it. Suddenly… a blond god-like looking hero with a bad wig appears, saying "That's my horse!". The Mighty Deathstalker just made his appearance. The mongoloids arrive, Deathstalker kills all of them (including the dude) on the tunes of some rather inappropriate Mexicanos western score (this is supposed to be a Swords & Sorcery flick, so what's with the 'arriba-trompettos'?), and then goes up to Captive Girl and exposes both her breasts. He starts to rub them and Captive Girl seems to like it. She starts liking her lips and caressing Deathstalker. Just when they are about to get down to it, this old dude appears, interrupting what could have been the end of a perfect day for Deathstalker (and a possible perfect ending for a short-film).

Now tell me… Isn't that the point where either a feminist would angrily switch off the movie, or any other male viewer would say "This is going to be one hell of a good movie!" The plot is as simple as throwing a kitten from the balcony: Deathstalker must obtain the Sword of Justice and use it to steal the Amulet of Life and the Chalice of Magic from the evil sorcerer Munkar.

Aside from decapitations, dismemberment, random bloodshed, retarded fist fights and embarrassing sword fights, this film also contains a massive amount of t!ts & a$$ shots. I initially wanted to add one extra point to this movie for each gratuitous shot of naked boobies I could count. After 9 points (not even halfway into the movie), I had to give up counting. It was distracting me from the rest of the movie. And the rest of the movie was worth it. Totally crazy stuff. Check out this mutant cat/worm-like creature Munkar has as a pet and which he feeds eyeballs and fingers. And here's an interesting question: What would you do if a man in a woman's body would enter your bedroom and try to kill you with a knife? The answer is simple: You slap him around a bit, take away the knife and then try to rape him. Then you discover that he's actually not a woman, so you throw him out of your bed and tell him to leave your room. It works out well, I tell you. Deathstalker does it too, and the Deathstalker-way, is the right way!

DEATHSTALKER is a wonderful movie, really, as pointed out in other comments. The villains are vile. The women are delicious. There's blood, sex, violence, rape and tasty chicken. There's a completely pointless tournament which just features a bunch of barbarians beating, slashing and hacking the crap out of each other. My favorite weapon used in that tournament was a giant wooden hammer, used to beat a poor contender to bloody pulp. And my favorite contender undoubtedly was that one brute with the Warthog-head (reminiscent of the Gamorrean Guards from RETURN OF THE JEDI). I won't reveal how the movie ends, but just prepare to ravish in delight when I tell you a 4-way dismemberment is thrown into the movie's climax.

And of course, there's a wonderful display of ineptitude throughout the whole movie. See a guy being dragged behind a horse over a dirt road, and the next point-of-view shot shows him being dragged over grass (no road). See that awesome tattoo on the sorcerer's head magically change sides within the same scene (on shot has it on the left side of his head, the other on the right). Well, after all, Munkar is a magician. It's that, or this movie was shot in an alternate universe where things like "continuity" simply don't exist.

As much as I enjoyed this and as much as I am looking forward to the other 3 installments in this series, I do have enough shreds of decency left in me to not let this movie pass. I am prepared, though, to give it the maximum amount of minimal points, just so I could be able to deduct a couple of more points for the possibly inferior sequels to follow. DEATHSTALKER might be a superbly fun, trashy & sleazy CONAN rip-off, it also is an abominable movie.@@@0 -I just watched this movie and have to say, I was very impressed. It's very creepy and has numerous moments that will make you jump out of seat! I had to smoke several "emergency" cigarettes along the way to calm my nerves! If I had to criticise, I'd say that perhaps if anything, there were too many jump moments. It got to the point where every single new scene climaxed with a jump and this gradually wore away the startling effect, because you kind of new what was coming.

Although it contains virtually every cliché in the ghost genre, they were all done so well that it maintained the creepy, fear-factor. It had elements of The Shining, The 6th Sense and The Changeling (in particular, the soundtrack reminded me of The Changeling).

I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned scare!@@@1 -Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience@@@0 -Well, this film is a difficult one really. To be straight with you, this film doesn't contain much of a riveting story, nore does it make u 'want' to know how it'll end...but I'll tell you something now...never have I been as tense and jumped up before in my life! This film sure does deliver the jumps and thrills! To be fair, I did watch it at almost midnight so I was kinda sleepy anyway, so maybe that explains why I was jumpy...or maybe it's because this film does deliver in that aspect! It's basically about a couple who lose their child in a tragic event. They decide to move away and rent a cabin looking thing in the mountains...all looks peaceful and calm until they have their first visitors (i think it's it's the sister of the main character, and she brings along her husband)...during the night, the husband hears noises...checks it out, and thats when things start to go really really wrong...they don't stay for another day and tell the couple they should leave asap as something isn't right...to cut a long story short...eventually they find out what has happened in that house in the past few years and decide it needs to be taken care of.

It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, nore does it have a huge budget, but please don't let that put you off. It's creepy, tense and very very jumpy! Just give it a try :)@@@1 -Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.

This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.@@@0 -Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake.@@@1 -This film was a big disappointment.

I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.

Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.

Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony.

I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.@@@0 -I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.

I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.

After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.

The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.

There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.

Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.@@@1 -0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.@@@0 -First, nobody can understand why this movie is rated so poorly. Not only is this the first real horrific movie since a very long time for me who am pretty hard-boiled with a decades long experience of horror starting with driving through dark rides (ghost trains) as a child. Second, the main actress Cheri Christian has a face that lets you hope she will be the leading actress in major pictures of the future. Third, this woman is that tremendously beautiful that I suggest the directors retire all those Cameron Diazes, Eva Mendezes, and how ever the names of these ephemeral bulb-lights are. Mrs. Christian is not a light, but a sun.

However, "Dark remains" is also of considerable metaphysical importance. They idea that photographs shows creatures of the intermediary reign between reality and "imagination" that are not visible with one' own eyes is not new. But I have never seen in a movie before that those creatures are visible on the photographs only for certain people and only to certain times. This means that the photo is not just an iconic picture of reality (by which reality turns into a sign), but becomes an alternative form of reality which can change as the "real" reality can. Being a sign, the changing of the picture means that it influences the photographed objects, i.e. the sign behaves like an object. Now, in our usual world of perception, it is common that objects change signs. F.ex., if someone grows a bird, his photograph will show him with beard, not without, as it did before. But the opposite, the changing of objects by signs would imply that the photo with beard is first and only then the beard grows on the man. This is, very simply expressed, the case that happen with the photos taken by the main character in the prison, in this movie. This is new, and we must be thankful for everything new in horror movies which usually just repeat and reorder effects and features that are already well-known, mostly since the silent time.@@@1 -I was searching through Hollywood video last night with a friend trying to find a good-looking horror movie to watch over the New Year's weekend. As I was looking through the shelves, "Severed" spotted my eye, and I grabbed it off the shelf and it looked like it might be a decent B-grade horror movie. The cover looked fairly good. The plot sounded semi-interesting. So I rented it. What a mistake. Don't be fooled by the cover, which actually looks decent. I'm thinking that more money was spent on the cover artwork than the movie itself. The film follows two police detectives who are tracking down a voodoo-inspired, ritualistic serial killer called "The Head Hunter", who is decapitating victims left and right in some unnamed city (probably Los Angeles), and they become drawn into his world of ritualized murder.

Story sound somewhat good? Well, it is, and this movie could've been halfway decent. But good God, it was bad! Almost everything about it was laughable. The opening scene features some redheaded actress in a car trying to talk on this huge, outdated cell phone, and for whatever reason, she goes outside and talks to some guy. Then, a shadow comes up behind them, hacks off his head, and the girl drops to the ground and starts crawling (for absolutely no reason) while trying to dial 911. Sound ridiculous? Yep, you bet it is. The entire movie looks like it was filmed on a VHS-quality camera, and I'm assuming it was. The acting was mostly awful, and the special effects were far from believable. And the scenes with the policemen on the phone were awful - the voice on the other line was echoing and it sounded like it was being recorded in someone's bathroom. Everything about this movie was simply amateurish and tedious, and it didn't hold my interest for very long, and I often found myself bored and tired, mostly because of the bad acting and the horrible cinematography. The pacing was bad. Everything was just bad.

Overall, "Severed" is a failed attempt at what could have been a decent B-movie. The plot was good and I think if this film had been handled better and had a higher budget, it could've been alright. But this movie fell flat on it's face. If you're expecting something semi-decent, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only recommended if you can tolerate D-grade horror flicks. Otherwise, you'll probably want to stay away from this straight-to-video garbage. It had a little potential, but it was beyond a mess. 1/10.@@@0 -"The Golden Child" was Eddie Murphy's first film since his megahit "Beverly Hills Cop". And even though it's not as good as "Cop", it's a fun comic adventure. Murphy stars as a finder of lost children who's assigned a most unusual case. His assignment: to find the title character, a child with mystical powers. This movie could have been titled "Beverly Hills Cop and the Temple of Doom" since parts of this movie plays like a Spielbergian adventure, kinda like an Indiana Jones comedy. It's got comedy with laughs, and adventure with special effects. Lots of fun.

*** (out of four)@@@1 -This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.

At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.

This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:

An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.

But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.@@@0 -Allen and Julie move into a cabin in the mountains after their daughter is murdered one night. No one knows who killed the little girl but it's why they moved to the mountains. So the couple moves into this cabin and it's haunted by people who killed themselves there and no one in the nearby town wants to talk about it.

This movie has a lot of creepiness to it and it has a lot of parts that made me jump. Some of the parts are predictable but once in a while there is a part I didn't expect. It was a pretty good movie that wasn't the scariest movie in the world but it was still scary enough to make it pretty good.

I also liked the ending because it left the viewer to decide how it ends. It is also kind of a sad movie as well but a well done horror movie.@@@1 -I own this movie. I bought it for $3.99 at a fairly major video retailer in order to do some "indie"" type movie research since I had just finished my own feature and was editing it. Now when I feel down about my skills as a first time director I just sit down with a plate of cookies and Severed. Within minutes I feel great!!!

I hate to down talk another filmmaker so I'll just use constructive criticism. 1. Find good actors. Take the time. It really helps. 2. When shooting video, over light your scenes and darken in the computer later on in post. 3. Closeups are better for Video. 4. When an actor enters a scene, wait a bit before

having them speak so that we know what's going on and who's talking. 5. Never show the back of a door while we wait for someone to come open it. Damn well worth the $3.99

The True Horror would be getting the reviews Severed has here on IMDb. And you have to give these guys credit... they did get distributed.@@@0 -This movie was very good. If you are one who likes to watch horror movies, I recommend it. The acting was very good although I thought that the actress playing Julie could have had more emotion behind her lines. Allan was very good and I thought the cinematography was amazing. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time while my friends were freaking out and screaming. It was a complete success in my opinion and should have made it to the big screen. I give it two thumbs up! I definitely would say that if you haven't already seen it then go rent it. If you have seen it and didn't like it go and watch it again because there are parts that were completely unreal. I also liked how a lot of the movie was filmed around and on my school's campus.@@@1 -Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway).@@@0 -Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain."Dark Remains" is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10.@@@1 -This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.@@@0 -After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.

Make sure and pay attention, as the "subtle" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.

There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she "normally" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.

Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.

This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays.@@@1 -Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!@@@0 -Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.

Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find "Dark Remains" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out!@@@1 -There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!@@@0 -What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.

What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.

Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental.@@@1 -OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.

It was worse.

(spoilers - who cares?)

My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.

Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).

Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!

Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).

Um.

Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.

Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.

OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god.

In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.

Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.

Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?

Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!

In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)

If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't.@@@0 -For years we've been watching every horror film that comes out, from the dull Hollywood retreads like Saw 2, to awful indie releases that are completely unmatchable... we suffer through all of bad films in hopes of finding little gems like "Dark Remains".

We managed to catch a screening of this film at Shriekfest 2005. The audience loved it and I believe it ended up winning the award for the best film.

While it may not have the budget or star power of studio films, it packs a serious punch in the creepy atmosphere and scare category. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but it's the direction that makes this film worth the view. The story and characters develop at just the right pace to provide some fantastic scares.

The editing and visual fx are also top notch. And while many horror films don't manage to use music to their benefit, the score for "Dark Remains" only adds to it's creepiness.

I know the film has shown at a bunch of festivals, but none have been near me, so I can't wait to hear when it'll finally be coming out on DVD. Trust me, even if you're sick of the current state of horror films, give this one a try... you won't regret it!@@@1 -To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I

gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative

story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If

you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will

really get a kick out of Severed.

The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald

and has a sword and goes around beheading random people.

But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it.

Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a

jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and

nobody sees it.

Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS

filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had

knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition

actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear

the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh

when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.

Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and

a hollar!@@@0 -If you haven't already seen this movie of Mary-Kate and Ashley's, then all I can say is: "What Are You Waiting For!?". This is yet another terrific and wonderful movie by the fraternal twins that we all know and love so much! It's fun, romantic, exciting and absolutely breath-taking (scenery-wise)! Of course; as always, Mary-Kate and Ashley are the main scenery here anyway! Would any true fan want it any other way? Of course not! Anyway; it's a great movie in every sense of the word, so if you haven't already seen it then you just have to now! I mean right now too! So what are you waiting for? I promise that you won't be disappointed! Sincerely, Rick Morris@@@1 -I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.

The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.

Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.

Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.

But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.@@@0 -this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it.@@@1 -This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!@@@0 -I always feel strange and guilty saying it (because I'm a fairly well-educated non-teenager), but I actually sort of like the Olsen twins, and I respect the movies they make, even though I've never really been their target audience. "When in Rome" was a traditional Mary-Kate and Ashley movie, complete with the foreign travel, accents, motorbikes, adult romance as a "B" storyline, fashion orientation, and even the gag reel over the credits. I enjoyed myself. "When in Rome" and the other Olsen twin movies never pretend to be anything they're not; most of the time, they only premiere on video, and they never claim to be the next "Citizen Kane" or even "An Affair to Remember." My point is, people who watch this movie and expect it to be anything other than another Olsen twin movie will be disappointed.

That said, those who ARE fans of the Olsen twins will really enjoy themselves. For those of us who've watched them since the first episodes of "Full House," it's really great to see them growing into more mature roles. This movie provides important historical and geographical information, just like many of their other movies (remember 10 Downing Street from "Winning London" and the visit to the Louvre from "Passport to Paris"?) as well as providing good, clean fun that can be enjoyed by the whole family.

As long as I still feel like I'm on my soapbox, and as long as I can make it relevant to the movie, let me take a moment to challenge those who reject the Olsen twins: in order to be a fan of the Olsen twins, you don't have to be some pre-teen "valley girl" from California. In fact, that's not really the target audience. If it were, the MK&A fashion line of clothes and accessories would be run through Gap or some store like that, not Wal-Mart. "When in Rome," while it does feature "high fashion" and globe-trotting and two girls from a valley in Cali, isn't really ABOUT that... it's more about inspiring young girls who have initiative to let it take them places. If that means setting the movie in some glamorous foreign city with cute guys on motorbikes, so be it. That's called marketing--you take an idea and sell it by making it appealing. At least they're sending a good message, even if the means seem a little superficial.

Basically, don't knock the film until you've seen it, and then don't knock it until you've tried to understand what the Olsen twins do: they encourage young girls to be creative, intuitive, and driven young women. This movie does that, I think, just like their others. Kids - enjoy. Parents - do the same. If you like the Olsen twins, you won't be disappointed.@@@1 -I went to the movie as a Sneak Preview in Austria. So didn't have an idea what I am going to see. The story is very normal. The movie is very long , I believe it could have cut to 1/2 without causing any problems to the story. Its the type of movie you can see in a boring night which you want to get bored more ! Ashton Kutcher was very good . Kevin Costner is OK. The movie is speaking about the US Coast Guards, how they are trained , their life style and the problems they face. As there aren't much effects in the movie. So if you want to watch it , then no need to waste your money and time going to the Cinema. Would be more effective to watch it at home when it gets on DVDs.@@@0 -I thought this was a splendid showcase for Mandy's bodacious bod. If you don't expect anything else, such as clever plot twists and believable character development, you won't be disappointed. Consider this a Sports Illustrated shoot whose character goes around killing people, especially those who threaten to come between her and her 'Mommy' (Suzanna Arquette, who obviously doesn't want to play the sex kitten - she leaves that up to her daughter).

Mandy's face is a little too perfect, but her body is a complete 5-alarm fire, up there in the ranks of Sophia Loren when it comes to natural bustiness, a perfect 7-to-10 ratio of waist to hips, and splendidly configured legs, right down to her feet. (There has to be some ideal configuration of thighs to knees to calves to ankles that is altogether pleasing to the eye; Mandy certainly is the model for this idealized ratio).

And no flat butt to boot, which seems to be the undoing of many a busty babe with curves everywhere except in the 'nether hemispheres'. Mandy might have used a body double in the rear shot of her losing her towel as she descended into the candle-lit hot tub with her blindfolded German-Guy Victim No. 2, but from all I could see from her bikini shots, she had the butt for it and didn't need a double to prove it.

Mandy's acting abilities had little to do with her impression of a psychotic 'Mommy's Girl', with the obvious erotic lesbian overtones. Her bisexual nature (allowing herself to be boinked in the hot tub after a long flirtation with German Guy No. 2, who also happened to be her mother's lover) added an additional dimension to an otherwise one-dimensional caricature of adolescent female horniness conflicted with pathological murderous impulses (always by water with the men - the ultimate fate of the Latina housekeeper was edited out in the televised version for some obscure reason).

Mandy's Uber-Nordic facial features coupled with her Uber-Voluptuous body could either be a blessing or a curse. If Mandy really wants to further her career as an actress, I'd advise her to immerse herself fully in the Romance Languages, especially Italian and Spanish - and maybe French, although I don't know if they would go for her type. But this would enable her to reconcile her Bo Derek face with her Vida Guerra body - but maybe her face is just a little too Nordic, and she has shown off too much of her extraordinary body in a cheesy movie to enable her to advance to any more fame that was enjoyed by Michelle Johnson of the 1980's whose early fame in Blame it on Rio was followed by a series of skin flicks that failed to make it off the ground.

Vambo Drule.@@@1 -What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost.@@@0 -*Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*

I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.

One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.

The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, "Werewolf." I have never seen anything like that in a film.

The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.

The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.

The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do!@@@1 -This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.

The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.

A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.@@@0 -This might contain a spoiler, so beware.

If it had been 200,000 thousand or two million people, does it make a difference? Sometimes I get so angry at the apparent apathy of a small number of (strangely very LOUD) Americans, but I have to remember that many people here in the US were not bred or raised to care about anything outside of their comfort zone. God Help us for what we have done. after the relative ease of what we did to the native Americans, and the indifference to the horrors of enslaving a race, you would think we'd have grown hearts and souls in the late 60's and early 70's. But now I see it is OK as long as our ends are justified to only us. How then, can we look at any other dictator and horrible government and think we are somehow doing good to impose our will? We are contradictory and hypocritical, and I am ashamed for this. I feel sorrow for the people affected. They deserve justice and their homes back. If this was done in my name as an American for my supposed safety, I don't want it. I denounce these actions, and hope our global community understands that many Americans believe the American government is a runaway train of deceit. No one is above the law. I want my country back, and so do the Chagos Islanders. Regardless of what people post from the anonymity of their computers, no one can in their heart deny that they would be unwilling to give up their birthplace for some bombs and heliports. We can't stand to be stuck in traffic, let alone forcibly and unjustly removed from our homes. 'Not one of us, Brit and American alike forget what goes around comes around. Don't buy into the fallacy that a simpler, more natural civilization is somehow less worthy of having their rights observed, and preserved - when we turn our backs on the basic human rights and dignities of 2000, we turn away from the basic human rights and dignities of all men.@@@1 -I have to admit that this "re-imagining" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.

I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the "re-making" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.

Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.

Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.

It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.

For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)

And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)

Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.

Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.@@@0 -This documentary explores a story covered in Pilger's latest book "Freedom Next Time", which was published in 2006. It reveals the shocking expulsion of the natives of Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.

The islanders are technically British citizens, as Diego Garcia is a British colony, much like Mauritius, the nearby island to where the natives were exiled, used to be. But the British government has ignored their pleas to return to their homeland, as the island is now a military base for the United States army, who have used it as a basis for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As usual, Pilger's coverage is shocking, especially as he documents the treatment and the current impoverished living conditions of the surviving islanders. His interviews all round are excellent, and his cornering of a Parliament representative where he uses the Government's own information to pin him down, ranks as one of his best.

Pilger also uses dramatic reconstruction to dissect a series of recently released documents that fully illuminate the British conspiracy to evict the natives. The weaving of this footage with the interviews, and the islanders music, really heightens the film's impact.

It is not easy viewing, but "Stealing a Nation" is John Pilger at his best. Recommended.@@@1 -Apart from Helen Bonham Carter, there is nothing worthy about this movie....And the surprise ending?! The thought of a sequel is even more annoying. Save your money, wait for the video and ignore that too.@@@0 -The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause.@@@1 -After looking at monkeys (oops apes) for more than one hour, I was feeling like one too. I was an ape, spending money on this movie. Please people, hold you money in your pocket and go see some funny movie like Bridget Jones's Diary..@@@0 -This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.

Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime.@@@1 -I read somewhere that Hollywood should concentrate on remaking bad movies and leave the classics alone. We can only hope. While this remake wasn't a total waste, I still wish I had the six bucks back to go toward a DVD of the original. Lots of violence and one of the worst endings I've ever seen. This version doesn't add anything new. It only reiterates why Hollywood should leave the good stuff alone.@@@0 -Ed Harris's work in this film is up to his usual standard of excellence, that is, he steals the screen away from anyone with whom he shares it, and that includes the formidable Sean Connery. The movie, which is more than a bit sanctimonious, comes alive only in the scenes when Harris is interrogated by the attorney for another convict. It is breathtaking, a master class in artistic control.

The other cast members are all adept and Connery is reliable, as is Fishbourne, but the story itself packs no wallop. The plot depends largely on the premise that a black prisoner always will be mistreated and coerced by white law enforcement officers. This is the engine which drives the story, right or wrong, and makes one feel a tad cheated at the end.

Still, worth watching to see Harris in action.@@@1 -I have seen and liked the original film, and expected more from a remake than this.

GOOD: Effects and makeup are good. No complaints about the score and visuals, they are adequate, and the performances were okay (Tim Roth was excellent, the other principals were fine, and a handful of the "supporting supporting actors" did very well with extremely limited roles). The action scenes were exciting and fun.

BAD: The escape from the ape city was terrible. The characters are going in circles, then suddenly someplace in the middle of town there are tunnels to escape. Plus, what escape route leads through everybody's bedroom?

The story was pared down to include as much action as possible. I like action scenes but the original film had more meat to it and deserved more respect.

Finally, the ending was completely nonsensical as presented. Without seeing the inevitable sequel, there is no justification for it.

@@@0 -This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. …making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie.@@@1 -The acting was bad, the script was bad and the ending was just terrible...the only good comment i could make about this movie would be the special effects and make up...but apart from that...this movie would be one of the worst movies of 2001...why on earth did they have to remake such a perfect movie and ruin it...why!!!!@@@0 -This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss "TRUE CRIMES" or "THE HURRICANE". My wife and me gave 8/10.@@@1 -This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.

The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.

Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'

From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.

The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.

The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.

Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.

This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.@@@0 -I've read a number of reviews on this film and I have to say "What is wrong with you people?!?!" This was an excellent film! I thought this film was superb from start to finish and the story was extremely well told. I'm convinced that the people that didn't like this film weren't paying very good attention to the film. There are a number of very important scenes that if you aren't paying attention you will be confused and the following scenes may not make sense. I urge anyone who didn't like this film to watch it again and watch it alone so that you can truly pay attention. The story made perfect sense to me and as I said, was very well told. Every scene in the film has a point and everything fits together at the end of the film.

All the actors did a fantastic job! Sean Connery was very good in his role as always. Laurence Fishburne was superb as Tanny Brown, playing a very interesting character. Kate Capshaw was a nice touch as well, and looks fantastic. Blair Underwood was a pleasant surprise, I didn't really expect anything great from him, but he pulled off a great performance. Ed Harris was the real gem in the film. He plays a truly sick individual and really makes you see how disturbed his character is. Watch his eyes in his scenes, just superb!!! Also, there is a very young Scarlett Johansson (as Kate) in one of her first roles...not a bad place to start. Excellent cast in this film!

I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that likes any of the cast members or just likes thrillers. This is a great film and should be seen. Don't listen all these other people's opinions, go see the movie and come to your own conclusions. I hope that you will see the film, and I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris@@@1 -If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.

There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.

It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.

The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.

Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.

In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.

Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.

Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!

Overall, Burton's most disappointing film.@@@0 -As usual, Sean Connery does a great job. Lawrence Fishburn is good, but I have a hard time not seeing him as Ike Turner.@@@1 -Warning: Spoilers Galore!

Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.

Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.

The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.

Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.

Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.

Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.

Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.

The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.

The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.

Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.

Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.

It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'

The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.

Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).

No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'@@@0 -I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend.@@@1 -Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting.

This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations.

The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.

Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals

@@@0 -Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.

He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.

His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.

The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.

At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.

It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.

Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist.@@@1 -If only to avoid making this type of film in the future. This film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story.

One might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many IMPORTANT issues but it does so without any discernable motive. The viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one's mind wanders, as it will invariably do during this pointless film).

One might better spend one's time staring out a window at a tree growing.

@@@0 -The movie was a suspenseful, and somewhat dark, look at the severe results of a genuinely human mistake. Connery and Fishburne work very well together in this thriller about murder and redemption. Keep your boots on for the strange turnaround at the end of the movie...you'd never expect it!@@@1 -Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.

Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.

If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.@@@0 -I really liked this film. All three stars(Connery,Fishburne and Underwood) give credible performances;and Harris is enjoyably over the top. The lighting and shot angles in some of Harris' scenes make his face look truly diabolical. The surprising turn of plot at the end makes it interesting. Not a great movie, but an enjoyable one. I gave it 7 of 10.@@@1 -I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful.@@@0 -A young and seemingly promising college graduate (played by Blair Underwood) is sent to jail for the murder of an innocent young girl and is put on death row. Sean Connery plays the "happy go lucky" attorney whom the young man's grandmother tracks down out of retirement and pleads with to take on the case in the hopes of freeing her grandson. Laurence Fishburne plays a police officer who was well involved in the case and is hell bent on debunking an theory that Connery might dig up to try and free the boy whom he and the entire police department swear is guilty of the crime. Ed Harris, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee, and the Late Lynne Thigpen co-star in this very intense dramatic thriller.@@@1 -This film has a weak plot, weak characterization, and really weak special effects that I question why I lost valuable life by watching it. It has random characters who add nothing to the story and seem like excuses for the director to get his girlfriend in the film. The robots are sad and the main "hero" 'bot is turned on by a huge knife switch. If this movie weren't so bad it would be laughable, but there's nothing funny about it. The main antagonist is one of the only redeeming characters, and he is killed. It's sad when you root for the bad guy, because he's the best one to cheer for. When all is said and done, this movie was better left on the cutting room floor, or never funded at all.@@@0 -I enjoyed this movie, granted it is mainly because I enjoy seeing Sean Connery act and this one has the added bonus of having Ed Harris and Lawrence Fishburne in it too. The story has a grandma seeking out Connery's assistance because her grandson is in prison and she says he was wrongly convicted. At first it seems there may have been some racist aspects of the case, however it later turns out the main officer on the case was black himself and it seems he did some rather bad things to coerce a confession out of the boy. Well the boy tries to point to another killer locked up in the same prison, one who is about to be put to death. He is a particularly nasty person too, as he takes a lot of joy in what he did, writing the relatives of his victims and trying to get people to mail them. A lot of twists and turns in this one with some of it being somewhat unexpected. Me I just enjoyed Sean Connery's character trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. The movie also made me mad in areas, especially when you find out what ultimately happened. You get very good interplay between Connery and Harris and Connery and Fishburne as they all shine rather well in this one. In the end this one makes for a rather good suspense/thriller.@@@1 -There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.@@@0 -To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID@@@1 -This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".

"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.

Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.

What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.

Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?

For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.

You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.

3/10@@@0 -hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie..@@@1 -I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising "Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of "prête-moi ta main"), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that "Prête-moi ta main", would be as good as "mensonges...". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as "Mensonges...", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's "Mensonges..." though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated!@@@0 -I read some previous comments stating that this movie loses steam towards the end of the movie and also that it has a similar ending to Cape Fear. I completely disagree. I'm going to give a simple review for the normal moviegoers out there. I thought the casting was perfect. I thought this was one of Ed Harris's best performances. What an evil psychopath!!! I have a lot of respect for his acting after viewing his performance in this movie. I was riveted throughout this movie. If you like mystery thrillers then this definitely a movie you want to see. I also noticed a young Scarlett Johannson in this movie. This movie is filled with top stars and I highly recommend it!@@@1 -If there is a hell, it contains a screening room in which GRAND CANYON is playing over and over again on an eternal loop. One would hope that the presence of so many marvelous actors - Danny Glover, Alfre Woodard, Kevin Kline, Mary Louise Parker - would help make up for the presences of Mary McDonnell (whose penance is to watch her own films for all eternity)... But, no. Apparently they injected those other actors with a serum made from McDonnell. The entire affair is pretentious, overblown, insulting (if you are deaf or know anyone who is, be prepared for your blood to boil at the ludicrous TDD scene). GRAND CANYON is filled with obnoxious, self-involved people, but never gives us a reason to like/understand/sympathize with or even tolerate them. With rare exception, they are insufferable losers that the gene pool would be better off without. There's no plot to speak of, no character development (these people won't EVER develop), no break-out performance and the most arch writing you'll ever encounter in a film. The best thing about GRAND CANYON? Its title. This is one large HOLE of a movie.@@@0 -JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night.@@@1 -Why me? Why should I be subjected to such slaughter of what could have made an interesting plot?! At least if I can warn other people off, it will have been worthwhile.

I had to watch this horrible movie for a college course. Otherwise, I would have looked at the synopsis on the back of the thing and steered clear. The movie was slow, had PAINFULLY little character development, and centered around the idea that a creepy little white man can become cool if he hangs out with an LA-style token black man.

If you want to experience the stereotypical LA feeling of dizzying superficiality - watch the movie. Note, though, that this movie does not DEPICT what we have come to think of as an "LA lifestyle", it is a wonderful example of the products that ARISE from it.@@@0 -Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.

Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.

When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil.

Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.

To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.

Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.

Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it.@@@1 -Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.

Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.

And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".

And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".

Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.

This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.@@@0 -A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.@@@1 -This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.@@@0 -Zentropa is the most original movie I've seen in years. If you like unique thrillers that are influenced by film noir, then this is just the right cure for all of those Hollywood summer blockbusters clogging the theaters these days. Von Trier's follow-ups like Breaking the Waves have gotten more acclaim, but this is really his best work. It is flashy without being distracting and offers the perfect combination of suspense and dark humor. It's too bad he decided handheld cameras were the wave of the future. It's hard to say who talked him away from the style he exhibits here, but it's everyone's loss that he went into his heavily theoretical dogma direction instead.@@@1 -"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.@@@0 -This movie really is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the story and concept of the movie are really good, tense and have some nice plot twists in it. But than again on the other hand, it all is told very slow, without style and uninvolved. Still I regard "Just Cause" as an above average thriller simply because of the fine cast.

Maybe Sean Connery was miscast in his role. I mean, he isn't really that believable as a the main 'hero' and father of a young daughter (played by a still very young Scarlett Johansson by the way) and husband of Kate Capshaw. I feel that he simply was too old for the role to be really credible in it. However Sean Connerey is of course a great actor and that is the only reason why he is still able to carry the movie as good as he does. But he of course is helped by a very solid supporting cast that consists out of actors like Laurence Fishburne, Blair Underwood, Ned Beatty, Hope Lange, Lynne Thigpen and Ed Harris. All actors are really good but some of them are highly underused at the same time, which is a real shame, as well as a missed opportunity. Especially Ed Harris is just totally great in his role as a psychopathic serial killer. He's truly chilling and acting superbly. Normally he doesn't play this ruthless, chilling sort of roles in movies, so he really surprises with his role in this one. His performance alone is already more than enough reason to watch this movie. However due to the fact that the story is told without much style and too formulaic, none of the characters in the movie really work out well because it feels all too distant.

It really is the way of storytelling that kills all the movie its fine potential. Arne Glimcher directs the movie with little style and keeps the pace too low at times. Because of this, we as viewers, never really get involved with the story or any of it's characters.

It really is too bad, for "Just Cause" had more than enough potential. A fine cast and a slick story with some unexpected twists and turns in it in which nothing is what it seems. The cast and story are the only reason why this movie is still an above average thriller, that will probably still please the fan of the genre. It however is an eternal shame that the movie is lacking in its story telling and style, or else this movie could had been a real classic in its genre.

7/10@@@1 -Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.@@@0 -Never having seen this movie, based on the entertaining novel by Nicholas Katzenbach, and taking into consideration the first rate cast assembled for the production, we decided to take a look. "Just Cause", while not a horrible film, takes too many liberties with the original material that Jeb Stuart didn't quite succeed in his treatment. Arne Glimcher directed.

The first thing we think when a young black man is hauled to the local precinct for interrogation is police brutality. After all, sheriff Tanny Brown, and police officer Wilcox, show no mercy in beating Bobby Earl, who is accused of killing a young white girl. We feel horrified by what the officers do to the prisoner.

Then, the scene changes. Evangeline, Bobby Earl's grandmother is sent north to ask a distinguished Harvard professor, a retired lawyer, the young man wants Paul Armstrong to defend him. She old woman is convincing enough for Armstrong to take a look at the case. He is also convinced of the young man's innocence.

Things are not exactly what we thought they were. When Blair Sullivan, a man who is serving time in the same facility as Bobby Earl, comes forward to tell about how he is connected to the young girl's murder, and changes the dynamics of the case. The way it plays in the movie, it serves to confuse the viewer and distract Armstrong from arriving at the truth.

This thriller is made enjoyable by Sean Connery, who plays Armstrong. Laurence Fishburne, an intense actor, makes a fine impression as the Sheriff who, as far as we can see, is guilty of abusing his prisoner. Ed Harris has a wonderful opportunity to show why he is one of our best actors. Blair Underwood, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee and the young Scarlett Johansson are seen in supporting roles.

The film, even with its faults, will not disappoint.@@@1 -This movie could have been 15 minutes long if it weren't for all the bickering between son and father. Very predictable. Both Male "stars" need a good slap in the face! Would you like some cheese with that "whine?" Two chuckles...and a headache. I can understand why the mother left her hubby after 47 years...I don't know how she lasted that long! The first 5 minutes made me want to turn the movie off wishing I had never paid the $3.99 to watch it! The movie didn't flow well and was painfully long. I kept watching my watch hoping time would fly faster...It didn't. The script had so much repetition that it had to be easy for the writer to fill space. On a positive note...the scenery was pretty, fall being my favorite season. The car, the 40 Ford was also quite nice. This movie gets an D- rating approaching an F@@@0 -Enjoyable movie although I think it had the potential to be even better if it had more depth to it. It is a mystery halfway through the film as to knowing why Elly is such a recluse. Then, when we are finally given an explanation going back to her childhood there still isn't much detail. Perhaps had they shown flashbacks or something.

Anyway, it is still a good movie that I'd watch again. 7/10

@@@1 -Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.

I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.@@@0 -A simple movie in the beginning, a simple movie in the end. It does have that un-ending and pretending cliche, but, most tv movies have that any ways.

Christopher Reeve does a good job as being an ex-con/drifter. The marriage between her and the woman he works for, I feel is a bit queer, but, I believe for the time period it is set in, that it is believable none-the-less.

Now, I saw the edited 'tv' version, even tho the movie was made and showed on 'tv', I find that a bit queer as well. But, I feel if I saw the entirety of the piece, I would give it more-in-likely the same rating.

J.T. Walsh does a nice job, not his best role, but, still....a nice job.

7/10@@@1 -I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.@@@0 -Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.

I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.

This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.

Lastly, the musical score is excellent.@@@1 -This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk.@@@0 -I found this movie to be charming. I thought the characters were developed since as I watched, I found myself caring about these people. This is a period piece that I believe took place during the depression. A single mother, who is known as the town recluse (she has reason to be), puts an ad in the paper for "a Husband". Christopher Reeve plays a ex-con who happens into town looking for work. He sees the ad and he goes out to see her. She hires him. I really had some chuckles as their relationship progresses because I found it easy to put myself in their shoes. Everything went on so matter of fact. He needs the work so he doesn't want to upset her. And she needing his help, but doesn't want him to get the upper hand. They dance around the fact that they begin to really need each other. Things start warming up until ......the big blowup. I won't spoil it by telling you what happens. But the point of resolution is perfectly wonderful. I found the story to be very believable for the time it's taking place. I think this is one of the better "relationship" stories out there. Maybe the younger generation won't "get it" but if you are over 40 I think you'll like it. And if you liked Christopher Reeve in "Somewhere in Time" you'll like him in this one also.@@@1 -This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.@@@0 -I love this film. The noir imagery combined with Spillane's no nonsense character Mike Hammer works marvellously to create a mood and feel seldom found in low budget detective films of the early fifties. It may not be 'The Maltese Falcon' but this film makes it's own solid contribution to the genre. Spillane is often criticised for alleged misogyny etc, but his 'dames' are way above their male counterparts in terms of cunning and intelligence. Poor old Mike Hammer, as effectively played by Biff Elliott, is blinded by the beauty of the mysterious psychiatrist whom he meets when investigating the death of an army buddy. When the penny finally drops his face is a picture. Good to see that 50s censorship did not force the film makers to omit the famous last line. A bona fide low budget classic.@@@1 -This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well.

The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.

Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.@@@0 -I consider this film to be the best one about Mike Hammer, with Biff Elliott's performance the definitive Mike Hammer. Harry Essex's script is excellent and contains many improvements on Mickey Spillane's novel. His direction is strong and imaginative, and he makes fine use of light and shadow. The camera work by John Alton is top-notch, as is the score by Franz Waxman. The cast includes many veteran players, as well as Peggie Castle in her memorable performance as Charlotte Manning. All in all, this is one of the finest private eye films ever made. Biff Elliott and Haary Essex should have received more opportunities. I have always treasured this film.@@@1 -This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.@@@0 -"The Last Big Thing" is a wonderful satirical film that sardonically whips pop culture to the point of humorous self-desctruction. The characters are so interesting and fun to laugh at/sympathize with. Which brings me to an introduction to the characters I liked best...

Simon Geist is a man in his late 30s/early 40s who creates a pop-culture driven editorial magazine called "The Next Big Thing". Thing is, this magazine doesnt really exist, and it is only an excuse for Simon to get close to actors by interviewing them, only to bitch-slap them silly, insulting their way of buying into pop culture. His live-in female friend, Darla, is also writing a magazine (which is real), which mainly has to do with her and Simon, as well as her and her father. Darla is a genuinely loveable (or loathable) character, depending on how you view her muted neurotic behavior. Magda is a prostitute, the character i liked the best. Brent is a flat character with not much to him, as is Tedra, the music-video queen for a bunch of B-rated rock bands. Still, these characters weave a very interesting web together. And this movie questions all the motivations that people have for what they do and why they do it. Its a wonderful film and I suggest you see it if you're in the indie/art house crowd. Mark my words!

@@@1 -Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.@@@0 -This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.@@@1 -Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.

The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.

The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.

The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.

Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.@@@0 -Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.

But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect.

This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.@@@1 -I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.

The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.

What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.

I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot.@@@0 -I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog.@@@1 -When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.

It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.

We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.

Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.

One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.

It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.@@@0 -This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo!@@@1 -Spoiler alert – although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.@@@0 -Saw this a couple times on the Sundance Channel several years ago and received a nice cinematic jolt to the system. A semi-surreal yet hard edged take on modern media culture (or the lack of it), focusing on some seriously wacked, way-beyond-the-Hollywood-fringe dwellers. It had an amusing early performance from Mark Ruffalo, and some memorable cinematography from the DP who did the Polish Brothers movies. There was a savage umcompromising humor and a weirdly original feel to it that definitely set it apart. This film had cult classic written all over it, and I'm surprised it's not yet out on DVD.

Hopefully soon.@@@1 -Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.@@@0 -The film revolves around a man who believes that all forms of media are obsolete. The idea behind his art project is to unmask the ridiculous culture that we are bathed in. Naturally, the film takes place in Los Angeles/Orange County. He attacks stand up comics (caw, caw, caw), rock bands, models, blockbuster Hollywood films, and touches on many other mediums. Eventually, he finds himself in the sights of the weapon he has set into motion. The film is five years old and rings more true every day. It's the best description of post-punk anger I've ever seen. It's also one of my top 10 favorite films.@@@1 -I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.

The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.@@@0 -I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.

This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot!

The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.

However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.

The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of "The Food," I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...

In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in "Weekend with the Babysitter."@@@1 -This movie was a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak "hero" with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he "won" was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as "soap" in my book.@@@0 -Frustrated middle-aged Deputy District Attorney George Maxwell (a fine performance by George E. Carey, who also produced this picture) can't stand his naggy, frigid wife Edith (a perfectly bitchy Anne Bellamy) anymore. Worse yet, poor George is further saddled with a newborn baby sun and a lascivious lesbian teenage daughter (dishy brunette Sheri Jackson). George has an adulterous fling with lovely, enticing and free-spirited swinging hippie babysitter Candy Wilson (delightfully played with sexy aplomb by yummy blonde knockout Patricia Wymer). Complications ensue when George finds himself being blackmailed by the bitter Julia Freeman (a nicely venomous turn by Kathy Williams), who wants George to spring her psychotic biker boyfriend Laurence Mackey (a frightening Robert Tessier, who sports a head full of hair here) from jail. Director Tom Laughlin (yep, the same dude who portrayed Billy Jack!) and screenwriter James McLarty cram the splendidly seamy story with a winning and highly entertaining surplus of delicious female nudity, sizzling soft-core sex, and raw violence. Moreover, they accurately peg the whole wild'n'easy uninhibited sensibility of the 60's youth culture and relate the plot in a tight 75 minute running time, thus ensuring that this movie doesn't overstay its welcome. One definite highlight occurs when Candy invites her groovy friends over the Maxwells house for an impromptu basement bash complete with pot smoking, wailing rock music, and, of course, hot naked dancing chicks. Robert O. Ragland's funky score hits the gnarly spot. Stanton Fox's stark black and white cinematography adds an extra gritty edge to the deliriously sleazy goings-on. Best of all, this flick rates as a marvelous showcase for the utterly charming and fresh-faced pixie Patricia Wymer, who positively lights up the screen with her sweet, bubbly personality and captivating beauty. A total trashy treat.@@@1 -Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.@@@0 -This familiar story of an older man/younger woman is surprisingly hard-edged. Bikers, hippies, free love and jail bait mix surprisingly well in this forgotten black-and-white indie effort. Lead actress Patricia Wymer, as the titular "Candy," gives the finest performance of her career (spanning all of 3 drive-in epics). Wymer was precocious and fetching in THE YOUNG GRADUATES (1971), but gives a more serious performance in THE BABYSITTER. The occasional violence and periodic nudity are somewhat surprising, but well-handled by the director. Leads Wymer and George E. Carey sell the May/December romance believably. There are enough similarities between THE BABYSITTER and THE YOUNG GRADUATES to make one wonder if the same director helmed the latter film as well. Patricia Wymer, where are you?

Hailing from Seattle, WA, Miss Wymer had appeared as a dancer on the TV rock and roll show MALIBU U, before gracing the cover (as well as appearing in an eight-page spread) of the August, 1968 issue of "Best For Men," a tasteful adults-only magazine. She also appeared as a coven witch in the popular 1969 cult drive-in shocker THE WITCHMAKER.

THE BABYSITTER has finally made its home video debut, as part of the eight-film BCI box set DRIVE-IN CULT CLASSICS vol. 3, which is available from Amazon.com and some retail stores such as Best Buy.@@@1 -How does a Scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather? Very,very carefully.Now I have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that I was born in Scotland.Far too many Americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously.It's a joke,people,"four legs good - two legs bad",as Orwell had it. Jessica Lange has an accent that the Wells - next - the - sea Amateur Dramatic Society's production of "Brigadoon" would turn down. Liam Neeson - apparently popular with the ladies - wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose Great Grandmama once stepped off the train at Edinburgh Waverley. And the Auld Enemy?Where would the Scots be without them to hate and blame for everything?Messrs Roth,Cox and Hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. "Robin Hood - Prince of thieves" seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison.And at least Alan Rickman was funny.@@@0 -"Let's Bowl" started out on local television in the Twin Cities. It came on late at night, something you'd stumble across while channel surfing after your 7th bottle of Hamm's.

Even the ads were locally produced, featuring Wally outside Grumpy's Bar, holding a microphone and stammering nervously -- "Ahh...over to you, Steve Sedahl." Not sure why, but that one always made me laugh.

There was a bowling contest featured under the guise of settling a dispute between two bowlers, but the game was secondary to the commentary and clips. Sedahl played it straight, counter-balanced by Rich Kronfeld's bizarre and hilarious "Wally Hotvedt." Highlights included segments like "How to Properly Dispose of an Old Bowling Ball" (chuck them into a lake) and "Tips on Dating," where the duo "date" a couple of hookers and Wally ends with the bitter complaint, "I could have done that myself!"

Another segment -- what the duo did on their days off -- featured Steve in beer can strewn hovel, pigging out from the fridge while Wally struggled to climb the cliffs at Taylor's Falls, dressed in his tight pale blue blazer and over-sized headphones. Hilarious!

Wally's awestruck comments about "league bowlers," and his struggle to apply the correct euphemism to various splits were also highlights.

"Let's Bowl" was picked up by Comedy Central and had some good moments, but the network never really knew what to do with it, running it during prime time and emphasizing the bowling "competition," which was never the point of the show. The constant commercials interrupted the flow and the side characters (Ernie, the Pig, Butch, etc.) were more distractions than anything else. The whole thing seemed rushed and kind of forced. Even Jon Stewart dissed Let's Bowl on the Daily Show -- (not enough lame, snide jokes?) -- an ignominious treatment for a show that deserved far better.

How often does a "Let's Bowl" come along in the world of modern television, a locally flavored mix of comedic genius and total crap? The networks have the "total crap" part down cold, but it's a sad thing to watch them kill such a dark, strange, funny little gem like "Let's Bowl."

Here's hoping they'll put it out on DVD.@@@1 -I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. "Gone with the Wind", "Gettysburg" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even "Gettysburg" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.

By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.

The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written "Jack" instead of "Jake" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become "bushwhackers" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.

Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?

In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed.@@@0 -Preston Waters is off to a bad summer. Besides his birthday coming up, nothing else looks promising.

First he has to share his own room with his brothers who are going to run a business. They can't do it in their rooms because they don't have enough space. Off to a birthday party he only gets $6 tokens while others get $32, $35, and even $50. When one of his birthday cards comes early, he only gets a check made out for $11.

Going to the bank he learns he needs $200 at least to start an account. Leaving the bank, a bully steals the check. Pursuing after the kid nearly gets him run over (definately his bike gets ruined) by a criminal named Quigley (played by Miguel Ferrer). Quigley's just come from the bank too from giving the owner $1,000,000 to give to this guy tomorrow. Quigley starts to write a check for the damage, but only succeeds in writing his name before a police car circles the area. Afraid, he gives Preston the check, informs him to give it to his dad to finish out.

That evening though, Preston tells his dad that he doesn't want a new bike, he wants his own room back, better yet his own house. His father confines him to his room for the rest of the evening. Moping in his room Preston figures things can't get any worse he realizes that he forgot about the check as it's still in his shirt pocket. It's blank.

Using the computer and after careful consideration, he makes it out for $1,000,000. The next day, while trying to cash it at the bank he's taken to the owner who thinks he's the person he's supposed to give the $1,000,000 and does. He's not though as the real person named Juice comes in a moment later.

Now the three have to track Preston down.

Meanwhile, Preston has fun buying all sorts of stuff including his own house and even going on dates with a disguised bank lady who's really and FBI agent (who's trying to track the 3 bad guys down). He makes this person up named Mr. Macintosh who he works for and even plans a party for him on his birthday.

But eventually things catch up (the money runs out, the bad guys get him).

Overall, a pretty funny flick. Miguel Ferrer plays his role very good. If you enjoyed him in Another Stakeout, you'll love him here. He does all sorts of wicked crazy things.

Rick Ducommun (the stressed out boss from Ghost in the Machine) plays a wonderful friendly chauffeur in this movie.@@@1 -Long on action and stunt work, but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. Not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who's doing what to whom.@@@0 -First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.@@@1 -This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.@@@0 -Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a "true" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).

The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.

As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available).@@@1 -This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle.@@@0 -Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway.@@@1 -This movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?

I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.

This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!@@@0 -This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives.@@@1 -I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .@@@0 -Preston Waters, a 11 years old boy,has problems with his parents and brothers specially because of money issues. He is crazy to have his own house and his own rules,since his brothers always stole his saved money and his parents neglect his wishes. One awful day, Preston was riding his bicycle; It was the same day that the villain of the story,Quigley, was trying to scape from the Police and accidentally ran the car over Preston's bike. Needing to be far away from the police, Quigley gives in a hurry, a check to cover the damages of Preston's bike. The problem was: It was a blank check! Preston is a clever boy and decides to have a high price on that check: 1 million dollars! All that money gives Preston things that he always wished for, like a mansion with pool,lots of toys, and even a limousine! The problems start to begin when the FBI and Quigley wants to know where the money is, making Preston in a hard situation and facing many problems.

This movie was one of my favorites during my childhood. :)@@@1 -Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)

At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.

The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.

Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)@@@0 -This is an excellent little film about the loneliness of the single man. Phillipe Harel as Notre Heros is a bit like an amalgam of Robert de Niro in Taxi Driver, Inspector Clouseau (in his stoicism) and Chauncey Gardiner in Being There (also Peter Sellers). He is single yet doesn't have a clue how to attract the opposite sex - in fact, he really makes no effort at all!

He has a stoicism and fatalism that defies any hope of ever achieving coupledom - his friend Jose Garcia as Tisserand is in the same plight yet at least makes a brave effort to transcend his extended virginhood (he's 28 and admits he's never had sex).

Very good outdoor shots of Paris and Rouen, where the two software people travel on business. They try various nightclubs and places but all to no avail. My theory is that they're trying the wrong places - they go to more-or-less 'youth' nightclubs; they should try the type that has older people, more their own age.

Harel increasingly becomes isolated and does a little de Niro effort, as in Taxi Driver, urging his friend/colleague to go and stab some bloke who's pulled a nice-looking girl in the nightclub.

Worth watching.@@@1 -I am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. Thought visually stunning like all of Ang Lee's work (each still frame seems worthy of a print), I was really disappointed by the film's disjointed pace. It really was too long.

The story is set in Civil War era Missouri, and is about a young man (Roedel) who joins the feral forces of the Bushwackers, sort of renegade Confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the Jayhawkers, their Union counterparts. He and his close friend, Jack Bull Chiles played by Skeet Ulrich, join the group after Chile's father is shot point-blank and his home is burned, presumably by Jayhawkers. The story follows Roedel's and Chiles' raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war, including former slave who fights for the Bushwhackers (Daniel Holt played by Jeffery Wright), and a war widow played by Jewel.

It seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point, it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. For example, the agitation among Roedel's group caused by former slave Holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol, and then dropped until later in the movie. A young villian/bully Bushwhacker hates Roedel and directs much angst and violence against him, but, we never know why. Some of the characters never seem to surface; I think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history.

The historical detail was excellent. I loved looking at the housing, furniture, clothes, etc., and I thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters, though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. Unless you really enjoy history or are a huge Ang Lee fan, though, take a pass on this one.@@@0 -Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.@@@1 -The central theme in this movie seems to be confusion, as the relationships, setting, acting and social context all lead to the same place: confusion. Even Harvey Keitel appears to be out of his element, and lacks his usual impeccable clarity, direction and intensity. To make matters worse, his character's name is 'Che', and we are only told (directly, by the narrator) well into the film that he is not 'that' Che, just a guy named Che. The family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film, and once defined, the family is divided - the younger generation off to America. So cliché. Other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy's family; however the political stance of the director is murky at best, and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. So they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) - so what? Refusing to take a political stand, when making a movie about the Cuban revolution, is an odd and cowardly choice. Not to mention the movie was in English! Why are all these Cubans speaking English? No wonder they did not get permission to film in Cuba. And if family life is most important to look at here, it would be great if we could figure out who is who - we are 'introduced' to them all in the beginning - a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film! The acting was mostly shallow, wooden, and unbelievable, timing was off all around. The 'special' visual effects were confusing and distracting. References to American films - and the black character as Greek chorus - strictly gratuitous, intellectually ostentatious, and consistently out of place. I only watched the whole movie because I was waiting for clarity, or some point to it all. It never happened.@@@0 -The book on which this movie is based was excellent; it took a while to come to grips with Houellebecq's unconventional style but once I understood the mood behind the writing I was completely drawn into the author's world of sadness. In fact, no other book has affected me so much. This is not necessarily a good thing - it elucidated my own personal struggle and has made the futility of my own struggle harder to accept. Houellebecq's insights are masterfully captured by Harel and the hero's apathy and indifference to a world which has rejected him is perfectly portrayed. This is a movie which reveals today's society for the lowly male in all its horror. Hopefully, things will change in the future but for the present we have to accept the rat-race as shown in this movie. It's probably best that Harel or Houellebecq do not create a work of genius like this again. One is enough for any man.@@@1 -this is seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.

the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken.@@@0 -It is an extremely difficult film to watch, particularly as it targets the innermost core of all of our lives. But ultimately it is a very beautiful and deeply moving film. Any person who finds it cynical I have to say that they must have greatly missed the point of the film's entire message. For those who actually watch the film, they will see that the way the issues are dealt with is absolutely necessary, and the outcome is ultimately uplifting. Sure, it's very hard to watch, a difficult subject matter and even brutal. Yet it's extremely relevant to society and everybody. It shows the peak of what world cinema is doing at the moment (I will not restrict that term to just France) and everyone should try to see it. I will say that it is best to go in with a clear head without being swayed by conflicting views, and just let the film work for you.@@@1 -**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.

The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.@@@0 -Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.@@@1 -I basically picked up this movie because I had seen Kitano Takashi's brilliant remake of Zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred Asano Tadanobu. These two movies are worlds apart. Zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. Gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction.

First off, I hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. "You cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior" says almost every character in Benkei's presence, yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. Instead of character development, we get bloated, boring, gory battle scenes. Asano's character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn't know what he is doing there. I know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of Asano's appeal, but this movie doesn't serve him.

A lot of the camera movement is nauseating. There is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and I felt like vomiting. The ending is ridiculous and rather anti-climatic.

Its too bad that really good samurai movies aren't being made in Japan nowadays with this type of budget. The colors, scenery, and costumes were great, but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. I would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth.@@@0 -A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's "le feu follet" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.

The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as "our hero",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.

This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps.@@@1 -Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment.

There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style.

A disappointment.@@@0 -I caught a bit of this concert on public television and knew I had to have it. The boys give everyone at the Royal Albert an excellent, often thrilling performance complete in every way. Pure, too - no synth, no smoke-shrouded lasers and strobes, no grandiose entrance (and an unstoned, serious, and appreciative audience, all of whom left their bottle rockets at home).

If you're a Cream fan (or if you've only heard of them); if you're a blues fan; if you're a rock 'n' roll fan; you will not be disappointed when you view and listen to this DVD. You also will never lose this DVD because you'll never lend it to anyone. (This DVD justifies selfishness! Tell them to get their own!) It's too good and too replayable; you'll want to keep it within easy reach.@@@1 -This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.@@@0 -With stunning cinematography and a thread of Kafkaesque absurdity, this movie had me from the simple yet fascinating opening scene. The movie plays much like a dream, and I think that may be why people either hate it or love it. Characters are drawn superficially and the story itself is slight and perhaps a little pointless. But these are failings of the movie but conscious choices. The film works isn't trying to work as history, but rather is a deconstruction of 1940s war movies.

I would have trouble arguing that there was much real substance to the movie, but the movie is such a cinematic wonder that I was completely swept away. This is one of the most beautifully filmed movies ever, and there is a wild imagination in its style. I can completely understand why people would hate it, but I give it 9/10.@@@1 -I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.@@@0 -Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie.@@@1 -All I could think of while watching this movie was B-grade slop. Many have spoken about it's redeeming quality is how this film portrays such a realistic representation of the effects of drugs and an individual and their subsequent spiral into a self perpetuation state of unfortunate events. Yet really, the techniques used (as many have already mentioned) were overused and thus unconvincing and irrelevant to the film as a whole.

As far as the plot is concerned, it was lacklustre, unimaginative, implausible and convoluted. You can read most other reports on this film and they will say pretty much the same as I would.

Granted some of the actors and actresses are attractive but when confronted with such boring action... looks can only carry a film so far. The action is poor and intermittent: a few punches thrown here and there, and a final gunfight towards the end. Nothing really to write home about.

As others have said, 'BAD' movies are great to watch for the very reason that they are 'bad', you revel in that fact. This film, however, is a void. It's nothing.

Furthermore, if one is really in need of an educational movie to scare people away from drug use then I would seriously recommend any number of other movies out there that board such issues in a much more effective way. 'Requiem For A Dream', 'Trainspotting', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and 'Candy' are just a few examples. Though one should also check out some more lighthearted films on the same subject like 'Go' (overall, both serious and funny) and 'Halfbaked'.

On a final note, the one possibly redeeming line in this movie, delivered by Vinnie Jones was stolen from 'Lock, Stock and Two Smokling Barrels'. To think that a bit of that great movie has been tainted by 'Loaded' is vile.

Overall, I strongly suggest that you save you money and your time by NOT seeing this movie.@@@0 -I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do.@@@1 -This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.@@@0 -I've loved all of Cream's work, even as there is such a small and precious catalog of work to take hold. Even when they go for as long as twenty minutes with some of their songs (Spoonful and Toad off of Wheels of Fire are prime examples) still rock the socks off of more than half of any given rock act working today. This power to gel on stage is given one of the most anticipate rock band reunions ever with their Royal Albert Hall shows last year. They may have gotten older, as have their fans, but the energy is still there, with the great arrangements of classic blues songs as well as their own. The renditions of White Room, Badge, Politician, Spoonful, Sunshine of Your Love, not one seems to miss a beat. Clapton's solos have a formation that he sometimes doesn't have when on stage with his solo band. Ginger Baker, enough said. Jack Bruce is sturdy enough with his vocals still with a kind of power that Clapton could never get on his own. Bottom line, if you want to see what were the best shows you wish you had seen last year (well, some may have seen them), it's all on this DVD, with cool special features.@@@1 -I recently saw this at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film. This is the feature length directorial debut of veteran Dutch actress Monique van de Ven and based on my observation it should be her last. I hate movies that are so implausible that you are picking apart practically every scene. This film immediately leaves you scratching your head. as it begins a young photographer and his girlfriend who works for an international aid organization are having a leisurely drive through the Taliban-controlled mountains Afghanistan having a conversation about their love when a rocket stops a truck in front of them. They get out of their vehicle to watch as Talliban fighters equipped with rocket launchers, machine guns, rifles, handguns and grenades execute all five people in the truck. Bob (Waldemar Torenstra) starts taking pictures of all this when he is spotted by one of the insurgents who lobs a hand grenade at them that kills his girlfriend. since they are with hand throwing distance they can't be more than 50 yards away yet he somehow gets away. His girlfriend is blown up and he takes a picture of the moment of the grenade impact that kills her and wins a prize as photographer of the year for the photo. Every scene and situation in this film as as ridiculous as it's opening. The following year Bob finds himself on assignment for National Geographic on a Dutch resort island where he meets Kathleen (Sophie Hilbrand) and inserts himself into her seedy underworld of international drug smugglers. Avoid this film. I would give it a 4.0 out of 10.@@@0 -So often a band will get together for a re-union concert only to find that they just can't get it together. Not so here. This concert is just shear brilliance from start to finish. These three musicians obviously got together beforehand and plotted and planned what was needed to ensure this was not just a nostalgic bash to satisfy someone's ego. This is obvious from the start, before they even step on stage. Many faces in the crowd weren't even born when these guys first performed. From the first song they capture that old magic that was Cream, 3 men, 3 instruments, no fuss. Clapton, by his own admission, said he had to stretch himself for this concert because there were no keyboards, synthesizers etc so we get to see him at his best. Ginger Baker demonstrates why so many drummers today, speak of him as some sort of drumming guru. Jack Bruce just great. They really managed to put together a piece of magic that will stand the test of time for many years to come. This one's a 10 for me.@@@1 -This movie is just like every other dutch movie, so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) Zomerhitte starts strong enough, but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. There's a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive), the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers), and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody's eye out...it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying "did you hear what happened...I was there"). the only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice...that's it. And the reason I saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in Holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews, you pay less money then for a regular movie and you don't know what movie it is that you will be watching. All you know is that it's a new movie that's not yet in the theaters). My advice is to stay far away from this film, if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek.@@@0 -Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker re-unite to play all their songs from 35 years ago when they formed a trio called "Cream." Those were the psychedelic days of England and America and these guys looked it: all skinny, very long hair, wild clothes and loud music. They played a combination of rock and blues and it was, for the most part, good stuff.

Well, these guys are now 60-something years old and they can still sing and play at a high level as this wonderful DVD concert disc shows us. I was always extremely familiar with Clapton, of course, who has never been out of the limelight, but I didn't know what to expect from Bruce and Baker, neither of whom I hadn't seen in decades. They surprised me. When he was young, Baker was so gaunt he looked like a speed freak near death. Now he looks healthy, in shape and his drum playing was solid. Bruce looked a bit haggard but his voice is great, as good as ever and a pleasure to hear on these old songs. This is just excellent material and performing from guys who know what they're doing.

Some people criticized this show for being low-key. I don't agree with that. I have no complaints. The concert sounded very good. The second song, "Spoonful," was outstanding, the highlight of the concert for me.

Highly recommended.@@@1 -Edward Montagne's Tattooed Stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. Instead, it's a poorly acted, witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. The plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. John Miles, who had a rather thin resume in the industry, grins and guffaws throughout, and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government-made filmstrip about driver safety. The movie anticipates shows like 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best' in its unnaturally wholesome view of New York in 1950. Why, the viewer doesn't even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. The only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by William Steiner. The low budget of the film works in the cinematographer's favor, as the viewer is treated to well-framed shots of New York City's interiors and expansive exteriors. Unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles, I suggest watching practically any other movie.@@@0 -Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast."@@@1 -Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.

.@@@0 -This film caught me off guard when it started out in a Cafe located in Arizona and a Richard Grieco,(Rex),"Dead Easy",'04, decides to have something to eat and gets all hot and bothered over a very hot, sexy waitress. While Rex steps out of the Cafe, he sees a State Trooper and asks him,"ARE YOU FAST?" and then all hell breaks loose in more ways than one. Nancy Allen (Maggie Hewitt),"Dressed to Kill,",'80, is a TV reporter and is always looking for a news scoop to broadcast. Maggie winds up in a hot tub and Rex comes a calling on her to tell her he wants a show down, Western style, with the local top cop in town. This is a different film, however, Nancy Allen and Richard Grieco are the only two actors who help this picture TOGETHER!@@@1 -"Demons III: The Ogre" is not related pre-sequel are on "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are cool hip horror 1980 classic."Demons III: The Ogre" is very stupid, bored, cheap monster. I am very confuse about the writer is "Demons III: The Ogre" (Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer and stupid who the bored William Shakespeare ghost or demon's egg from Spider's web or what Huhuhuhuhu make the girl dream). I am very sorry, very very very very boring movie. I Bought The special DVD box called "Demons" on the 3 different movies called "Demons III: The Ogre", "The Other Hell", and "Black Demons" don't have closed captioned and Subtitles is cost $ 14.99 from Best Buy store in the City of Downey. Why the Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer who make the stupid movie almost like "Halloween III" don't have Michael Myer monster but the people wear Halloween. I am very confused. I really love "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are better the boring stupid "Demons III: The Ogre" is not part for "The Demons" and "The Demons 2" are same demons.

Thank you Juan Antonio De La Torre@@@0 -An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)@@@1 -(aka: DEMONS III)

Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.

An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.

Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.

But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.

The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee.

The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.

3 out of 10

@@@0 -I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!@@@1 -This was really a very bad movie. I am a huge fan of Italian Horror, Argento, Mario Bava, Fulci and yes, even our good friend here Lamberto sometimes comes out with a good one. I found the first two 'Demons' films to be highly entertaining - they were so bad they were great but this one is just so bad that it is really, really bad. It is intensely boring, the story never goes anywhere and I hated the characters - the wife slapping husband and whiny cry-baby pain in the *** wife drove me mad, there was nowhere near enough of the story devoted to the Ogre who was probably the best actor in the whole film. I turned it off about three quarters of the way through because I was very, very BORED! Don't bother.@@@0 -I must say that I really had no idea that I was going to sit down and watch this movie. I guess it was the fact that I had nothing better to do between class. But, for once a TV movie caught my interest. More importantly Helen Hunt caught my eye. I really wasn't a big fan of hers prior to this film. Sure I liked Twister and As Good As It Gets. But, something about this movie really did it for me. I would now see myself as a huge fan. This movie comes with high marks from...me. Give it a chance, it won't let you down.@@@1 -The thing that really gets me about this movie (that is, the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. There is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. It is not frightening, it is not thought provoking, it is not entertaining, it is not good. It is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. The DVD case compares it to Blair Witch, Evil Dead, and a few other decent movies, making the filmmaker's desperation glaringly obvious. It is nothing like any other movie ever made; it is far, far worse. The claims of an "extremely shocking ending you will never forget" are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. Please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash, because it may make you sterile. The man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the Writer's Guild membership list, and never allowed to film anything again. Because if he thought THIS was a movie worth making, he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. Zero stars. May Grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. I am going to go vomit now.@@@0 -I Enjoyed Watching This Well Acted Movie Very Much!It Was Well Acted,Particularly By Actress Helen Hunt And Actors Steven Weber And Jeff Fahey.It Was A Very Interesting Movie,Filled With Drama And Suspense,From The Beginning To The Very End.I Reccomend That Everyone Take The Time To Watch This Made For Television Movie,It Is Excellent And Has Great Acting!!@@@1 -This movie was extremely boring. It should least not more than 15 minutes. The images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing.

Usually I don't write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. I think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title.

What more can I say? I fall asleep during this movie 3 times. It was about 4 hours after I had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. I think it is the point itself.

There is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end.

When you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again.@@@0 -On October of 1945, the American German descendant Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) arrives in a post-war Frankfurt and his bitter Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) gets a job for him in the Zentropa train line as a sleeping car conductor. While traveling in the train learning his profession, he sees the destructed occupied Germany and meets Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the daughter of the former powerful entrepreneur of transport business and owner of Zentropa, Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold stays neutral between the allied forces and the Germans, and becomes aware that there is a terrorist group called "Werewolves" killing the sympathizers of the allied and conducting subversive actions against the allied forces. He falls in love for Katharina, and sooner she discloses that she was a "Werewolf". When Max commits suicide, Leopold is also pressed by the "Werewolves" and need to take a position and a decision.

"Europa" is an impressive and anguishing Kafkanian story of the great Danish director Lars von Trier. Using an expressionist style that recalls Fritz Lang and alternating a magnificent black & white cinematography with some colored details, this movie discloses a difficult period of Germany and some of the problems this great nation had to face after being defeated in the war. Very impressive the action of the occupation forces destroying resources that could permit a faster reconstruction of a destroyed country, and the corruption with the Jew that should identify Max. Jean-Marc Barr has an stunning performance in the role of man that wants to stay neutral but is manipulated everywhere by everybody. The hypnotic narration of Max Von Sydow is another touch of class in this awarded film. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Europa"@@@1 -Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.

Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.

The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.

Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.

The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.@@@0 -**SPOILERS** Highly charge police drama about a serial killer loose in and around the small town of Riverside Wisconsin. Who's being tracked down by the local police using policewoman Gina Pulasky, Helen Hunt,as an undercover decoy to catch him.

Nothing new in this made for TV movie that you haven't seen before but the depth of the acting and screenplay is unusually good and brings out a lot about not only the killer but the policewoman's, as well as her fellow policeman lover, state of mind.

Having been put under psychiatric care after shooting an armed and unstable assailant, who attacked her partner with a rifle. Officer Palusky is given the task to go undercover to get close to murder suspect Kayle Timler, Steven Webber. After he was positively identified by the little girl Sahsa, Kim Kluznick,who saw him not far from where little Timmy Curtis was found stabbed, 18 times, to death the next day.

Getting a job at the Mr. "C" Diner where Tim works Gina gets to become very friendly with him and later tells him, in order to get Tim to open up, about him possibly being the serial murderer that she once killed in a hit-and-run accident a 79 year old woman.

Tim who is said to have a genius IQ doesn't seem to pick up on Gina's attempt to trap him even when he later sees her at a bowling alley with her fellow cops spending a night out. Playing some weird cat and mouse game with her Tim at one point get's Gina, at knife point, to admit that she's wired. But Gina tells him that she was forced to do it by the police to get a break and an early release from prison. Besides Tim's instability and criminal actions we find out that Gina isn't all there as well.She seems to be suffering from her being rejected by her father who left her, with a drunk and abusing mother, as a young girl that's effecting her work as an undercover policewoman.

There's also the fact that Gina's lover policeman Will McCaid (Jeff Fahey), who's estranged from his wife and two kids, who's also on the serial murder case is too overprotective of her. That causes Gina to almost blow her cover and that has her later being taken off her assignment.

Put back on undercover duty by her boss Capt. Cheney (Dan Conway), over the objections of Officer McCaid, after another young boy, 12 year-old Davy Marish,was found murdered Gina finally get's herself together and gets Tim to admit that he's the person who's responsible for the string of murders in the area. Gina does it by having a hidden tape recorder that she replaced the one that she gave to him to show how honest she is, hidden on her.

The movie "In the Company of Darkness" wasn't really that exceptional but the acting by Helen Hunt Jeff Fahey and especially Steven Webber was. It was these high caliber performances that lifted the film well above the average made for TV movie were used to seeing.@@@1 -The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water.@@@0 -This is one of the best movies out there and that's saying a lot being that it was for television. I really wish it was on d.v.d.

Helen Hunt gave such a raw performance. She played a rookie cop thrown into serial killer case perfectly. When she falls apart because he kills another kid it was amazing. She is so alone, so he gets to her. When she talks about her mother! WOW!

Steven Weber as the serial killer was so shocking! He really brought her into his dark world. It was Oscar-worthy. When he talks about killing the kids, scary! When he realizes who she really is! What a scene!!

They really don't make them like that anymore. It was a real thriller without being gory.@@@1 -Jerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.

I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).

There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons.@@@0 -Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.

Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer.

Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.

Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom "Wings", did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.

The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little.@@@1 -Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio.

Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.

We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."

These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.@@@0 -More TV movies ought to be made like this one. I saw it way back in '93 when it was first on TV. Helen Hunt and Steven Weber were both terrific, giving very gritty and realistic performances. Weber was especially good, turning in an exceptionally creepy and understated performance as the child molester/killer. This film really increased my respect for Hunt as an actress. The director also directed "Hoosiers," which was somehow both formulaic and exciting. But the direction in both of these works has the same stark, simple realism that is so appealing. If you like TV movies that aren't predictable and filled with overacting, see it if you can. The side story about Hunt and Fahey's affair is also appealing without detracting from the main story.@@@1 -Don't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile.@@@0 -When a small town is threatened by a child killer, a lady police officer goes after him by pretending to be his friend. As she becomes more and more emotionally involved with the murderer her psyche begins to take a beating causing her to lose focus on the job of catching the criminal. Not a film of high voltage excitement, but solid police work and a good depiction of the faulty mind of a psychotic loser.@@@1 -This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.@@@0 -I have seen this movie more than several times, on TV. I ALWAYS watch it again...NEVER turning the channel. This movie is full of chilling surprises, and absolutely edge-of-your-seat suspenseful, without being overbearing or stupid. Helen Hunt's talent is magnificently shown in this movie! I recommend this movie to anyone!!!@@@1 -Oliver Hardy awakens with a hangover and soon learns that his uncle is coming to see Ollie's new wife and baby. The problem is, they don't exist--Ollie apparently made them up! So, it's up to him and his pal to locate a lady with a baby who will agree to pose as his family.

This isn't a particularly unique story idea, as I've seen at least a couple other silent shorts with this exact plot. The best of these was Bobby Vernon's DON'T KID ME. It is much better than ONE TOO MANY--probably much of this was due to it being made a decade later--when comedy became a bit more sophisticated and relied less on pointless slapstick. Now I am not against physical comedy, but in some slapstick films, people starting shooting guns wildly, kick and strangle each other, etc. with little provocation. Sadly, at the end of ONE TOO MANY, that's exactly what they do. None of it makes sense and it was as if they'd just run out of story ideas.

Overall, not exactly a milestone in entertainment. There's just not enough payoff to merit watching it unless you are an obsessive silent fan like myself.@@@0 -I just finished viewing this finely conceived, and beautifully acted/directed movie. It was nip and tuck as to whether I was going to waste my time viewing a movie on the Lifetime Movie Network because of the horribly distracting commercials. Reading the earlier comments persuaded me to give it a shot. After all the worst that could happen would be that I might fall asleep during one of the boring yet lengthy bug spray ads. So why did I watch it? mainly because when IMDB gives a movie a "WEIGHTED AVERAGE" OF 5.8 WHO'S STATISTICAL AVERAGE was 7.3 It must be a sure hit.

I was totally delighted to have taken the time to view this movie, commercial pox and all. Helen Hunt continues to amaze me with her ability to take on tough roles adapting her core persona to fit each role.

The portrait she painted in this film of the tough yet perceptively human police officer was beautifully executed. When the scene calls for quick witted, timely delivered verbal intercourse, she can stand toe to toe with any actor. Yet she is adept at the delivery of volumes of emotional response without uttering a word relying only on facial expression and body language. Without the commercials, which by design kill the continuity of any good film, This would have been a real edge-of-the-seat nail-biter. I gave it a 9.0@@@1 -Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy had extensive (separate) film careers before they were eventually teamed. For many of Ollie's pre-Stan films, he was billed on screen as Babe Hardy ... and throughout his adult life, Hardy was known to his friends as 'Babe'. While touring postwar Britain with Laurel in a music-hall act for Bernard Delfont, Hardy gave an interview to journalist John McCabe in which he explained the origin of this nickname: early in his acting career, Hardy got a shave from a gay hairdresser who squeezed Hardy's plump cheeks (the ones on his face) and said 'Nice baby!' Hardy's workmates started crying him 'Babe', and the nickname stuck.

Although much of Hardy's pre-Laurel work is very interesting -- notably his comedy roles in support of Larry Semon and the Chaplin imitator Billy West -- his teamwork with Billy Ruge (who?) in a series of low-budget shorts for the Vim Comedy Film Company is very dire indeed. Hardy and Ruge were given the screen names Plump and Runt: names which are unpleasant in their own right, but made worse because Ruge (although shorter than Hardy) isn't especially a runt. Seen here, Hardy looks much as he does in his early Hal Roach films with Laurel ... but without the spit curls and the fastidious little moustache.

'One Too Many', an absolutely typical Plunt and Runt epic, is direly unfunny ... and its dreichness is made even more conspicuous by the fact that this film has exactly the same premise as 'That's My Wife', one of Laurel and Hardy's most hilarious films. Plump (Hardy) is the star boarder in a rooming-house run by a tall gawky landlady. Runt (Ruge) is the porter. Plump receives a letter from his wealthy uncle John, whose dosh he expects to inherit. His uncle is coming to see him and to meet Plump's wife and baby. There's only one problem: Plump hasn't got a wife and baby. He's been lying to his uncle in order to seem a family man. Now, of course, Plump expects Runt to find him a wife and baby on short notice. Of course, the results are disastrous. It would be nice if those disastrous results were funny, but they aren't. Most of the unfunny humour here is just empty slapstick, with characters settling their arguments by shoving each other into bathtubs.

SPOILERS COMING. Vim director Will Louis (who?) shows no instinct for camera framing: the actress who plays the landlady is significantly taller than Hardy, and Louis consistently sets up his shots so that her head is out of frame. This could be funny if done on purpose, but it's merely inept. At one point in this bad comedy, an extremely tasteless gag is looming on the horizon as Runt approaches a black laundress. 'Surely they wouldn't stoop THAT low for a laugh,' I thought. But they do. Runt steals the woman's black infant and tries to fob this off as Plump's progeny.

Somehow, Plump acquires an infant's cot, but he still hasn't got a baby. With Uncle John coming up the stairs, Plump conscripts Runt for babyhood. This gag might just possibly have worked with a midget, or even with a truly runt-sized actor such as Chester Conklin, but Billy Ruge is only slightly below average height. Ruge's impersonation of a baby is neither believable nor funny, and Uncle John would have to be a complete moron to fall for it. Amazingly, he does!

The most notable aspect of 'One Too Many' is a brief appearance -- apparently her only-ever film appearance -- by Madelyn Saloshin, Oliver Hardy's first wife. The marriage was not a happy one, although Hardy's marital troubles never attained the epic proportions of Stan Laurel's.

Only one thing in this movie impressed me. There is a very brief flashback sequence, with Hardy reminiscing about his seaside romance with a bathing beauty. In 1916, there was still not yet a standard film grammar for conveying flashbacks: the one shown here is done gracefully and simply. Too bad this movie has no other merits. 'One Too Many' is definitely one film too many on Oliver Hardy's CV, and I'll rate this movie just one point out of 10. Laurel and Hardy together are definitely much funnier than either of them separately.@@@0 -This anime was underrated and still is. Hardly the dorky kids movie as noted, i still come back to this 10 years after i first saw it. One of the better movies released.

The animation while not perfect is good, camera tricks give it a 3D feel and the story is still as good today even after i grew up and saw ground-breakers like Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. It has nowhere near the depth obviously but try to see it from a lighthearted view. It's a story to entertain, not to question.

Still one of my favourites I come back too when i feel like a giggle on over more lighthearted animes. Not to say its a childish movies, there are surprisingly sad moments in this and you need a sense of humour to see it all.@@@1 -When the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine "Slapstick Encyclopedia" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.

The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old "Babe" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's "Slapstick Encyclopedia" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff.@@@0 -I felt compelled to write a review for Space Cobra as it has received a good score of 7.3 stars but only a few of the reviews at the time of me writing this were particularly positive. A strange situation and hopefully my positive review will point people towards this old and mostly forgotten Anime movie. Space cobra is the funky tale of a smuggler and rogue who becomes involved with the three sisters of an ancient and dead planet and an evil force who wants to harness the planets powers. This is an old movie and the animation shows, but what it lacks in modern sophistication it makes up with an abundance of charm. Space Cobra is very much geared to a western audience and very easy to watch. There are few if any references to specific Japanese culture and great for Anime novices to watch and enjoy. Space Cobra himself is witty and likable. I cannot say how much of this is due to the English dub or the intentions of the maker, but this is one of the few Japanese comedy characters that I find truly funny. The style is very sixties Barbarellish with a fantastic soundtrack by Yello. The style is colourful and imaginative and there is constant action to move the story along. The strangest aspect of this movie is how it begins as a comedy and ends on a very downbeat dramatic note. I cannot think of another Anime or general movie that has been able to do this so seamlessly and convincingly. You barely realise that it is happening, but it is done so subtly and seems perfectly natural. You also really feel the characters went on a journey and they're lives were changed by the whole experience. Check out if you can.@@@1 -A sentimental school drama set in Denmark, 1969, "We Shall Overcome" offers a pathetic Danish take on US culture. Frits (Janus Dissing Rathke), a flower-power obsessed, naive 13-year-old, exits with half his ear hanging off from brutal master Lindum-Svendsen's (Bent Mejding) office. Lindum-Svendsen, a school director, portrayed as a fascistoid tyrant, has the local community in control. Lindum-Svendsen's gone too far this time, and with his father, recovering from a mental breakdown (sure, there wasn't enough drama already..), and overly stereotyped hippie music teacher Mr Svale ('Hi, call me Freddie'), Frits stands up for justice.

Tell you what. It's so unconvincing, over-(method-)acted, and so full of misery, that as a 'family' picture this grotesque -filled with cliché's- excuse for a movie fails miserably to convince non-Scandinavian audiences. Sorry, kind danish readers, to crash like this into your sentimental journeys.. But it's definitely NOT a tale about a 'boy becoming a man by fighting the system'. The boy never becomes a man, but rather remains a naive, big eyed cry-face. If you call a church of small minded small town folk, led by a dictator like cartoonish character "the system", I'm sorry if I'm missing something.

If you're into family pictures, go see Happy Feet instead..@@@0 -This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie!

I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.

The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.

I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.

This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.

The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.

JUST WATCH THIS FILM!@@@1 -Probably somebody heard of Alberto Tomba. A former policeman, a former sky champion, and, now, a TERRIBLE actor. "Alex L'Ariete" was planned to be a TV "mini serial", but the Italian television itself refused to show the movie on its channels. Now it's a, believe me, ridiculous movie. The script it's simply hilarious (it's supposed to be a dramatic movie), something like a 5 years old kid work. But what really blows you away it's the amateurish acting: Alberto Tomba, who actually was not believable as a policeman himself, plays terribly a totally silly character: a special operations italian policeman specialized in smashing doors open! ("ariete" is "ram"). This super-guy will try to save a young nice girl life (an actual italian "little" TV showgirl, married to the singer Eros Ramazzotti): nice but absolutely inept in the acting. Lose this one and make yourself a favour. A movie that is a shame to Italian cinema industry: only John Travolta in Earth Attack got close..@@@0 -This is the fifth von Trier film I have seen. I believe that he is the only director to whom I have given such a high score on all his movies. Four of them, The Element of Crime, Europa, Breaking the Waves, and Dancer in the Dark, I have given a 10, and one, The Idiots, I have given a 9 (and I have been reconsidering whether to give it a 10 since I first saw it, although I'd like to see it once more before I do). He has been chided for calling himself one of the best working directors. I tend to agree with him. I cannot blame him for being arrogant when he has made such great films. In 50 years, when von Trier retires, he will be looked upon as the pre-eminent film artist from Europe (perhaps from the planet), and there will be classes taught in his name. He simply is the Bergman or Fellini of our time. It is too bad the critics are too intrigued with themselves to notice this.

About Europa itself, I'll admit that it was confusing and that its narrative did not seem strong. I think that's the point. This film was obviously meant to represent a nightmare, or the subconscious at some level. This is absolutely clear from the framing of the film: Max von Sydow's narration. We are hypnotized, or von Trier is hypnotized, and this is our/his subconscious mind. I'm inclined to lean more towards his mind, since the degradation of Europe concerns me, an American, very little. This framing is also clear if you have seen The Element of Crime, an even more brilliant film than this (although I am disputing that in my mind; what Europa needs more than anything is a proper release on DVD, hopefully Criterion again, with theatrical aspect ratio and remastered sound and picture; then, I am fairly sure, this film would seem as great as any of von Trier's other films). In The Element of Crime, the film begins with a hypnotist, whom we actually see on screen this time, is hypnotizing Fisher, a European detective who wants to get to the root of his mental anguish. The first words of that film are "Fantasy is okay, but my job is to keep you on track." And whenever Fisher, the narrator, gets off track, the hypnotist does chastize him and tells him to get back on with the story. He even laughs when a character is given a really silly and trite line. Something along the lines of, "Do you understand the difference between good and evil?" The hypnotist laughs and says, "Now, Fisher, she didn't really say that, did she?"

So the key to interpreting Europa, almost a sequel of sorts to The Element of Crime, is that we are deep in our/von Trier's subconscious, and the symbols there are to be interpreted within ourselves and will likely be different for everyone. What does the train itself symbolize? Consider it internally, and only then discuss it externally. Europa is a great film, a masterpiece. I was never bored by it, even though I watched it at 3 am. The perfect time to watch, actually, since it works in dream logic.@@@1 -So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.

There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.

It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.

4 out of 10, kids.@@@0 -In the early to mid 1970's, Clifford Irving proposed to write the ultimate biography of Howard Hughes,claiming to have spent months preparing for the book,engaged in interviews with the reclusive millionaire. When all of this turned out to be false,Irving was accused of perjury & spent several years behind bars (although always admitting his findings were accurate). Flash forward to 20001,several months prior to September 11th, a book,entitled 'Forbidden Love' (published in the U.S. as 'Honor Lost:Love And Death In Modern Day Jordan') by a previously unknown author by the name of Norma Khouri,a woman from Jordan,who reported on the death by mercy killing of her best friend Dalia,due to the fact that Dalia,being from a devout Muslim background,was dating a Christian man. It,like Irving's biography on Hughes was revealed as a potential hoax. Australian film maker,Anna Broinowski attempts to delve into the quagmire that was Khouri's attempts to clear herself of the lie(s). Over the time frame of 104 minutes,the film attempts to reveal is Norma Khouri telling the truth,or is she just a compulsive liar,with an agenda/vendetta of her own?. Interview footage with those who know/knew her (including an ex husband,her publisher,and others) tell their side of the story. This is a toothsome,well produced documentary that manages to point many fingers at just as many potential guilty parties. Not rated,but contains pervasive bad language & a re-enactment of the grisly murder scene,played over a few times (but nothing nearly as graphic & disturbing as what one would see in the latest torture porn epic,such as Saw:Part 84). Not a good choice for the little ones.@@@1 -This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud.@@@0 -Beat a path to this important documentary that looks like an attractive feature. Forbidden Lie$(2007) is simply a better (cinematic) version of Norma Khouri's book Forbidden Love, and THAT was a best-seller. An onion-peeling of literary fraud and of a pretty woman, Lie$ is the very best in editorialised reality TV.

Cleverly edited and colourful, Broinowski's storytelling is chaptered by moving silhouettes of Norma Khouri meaningfully blowing smoke. I disagree (with Variety) that it's overlong; instead my one slight problem was with the episodic nature of its key players commenting on others' just-recorded testimonials. On a single watching your sense of narrative becomes mired.....so I watched it twice.

This Oscar-worthy effort is at once genuinely funny, upsetting, and totally engrossing as it documents one lie after another. The apparent con unfolded in the Australian State of Queensland via very personal swindles of Khouri's friends and fans(!). Clearly these friends are now "turned", the funniest on-camera line belonging to Khouri's QLD neighbour Rachel Richardson who speaks her disillusionment in flat, no-nonsense colloquialisms: "I think it's a load of sh!t. Personally".

We need to learn from their experience, hence my belief in spoilers. Any perennial lie-spinner caught out in a lie will just say anything to buy time to tell another lie.

There's some breathtaking footage of Khouri cackling derisively at duping this very documentarian, who instead presses her (con)"Artist" repeatedly for corroboration.

Since being busted by Sydney Morning Herald journalists Caroline Overington and David Knox a year after publication, Khouri has been on the run, but was tempted back to the director to supposedly clear her name. She absconded supposedly because a) she's either terrified of her sly, more-Italian-sounding-than-Greek husband, or b) because she needed her passport/visas to clear her name.

Unlikely.

A more plausible reason was that the FBI regained her trail in Queensland before she again skipped overseas (one guess: No, not Jordan). According to a closing card, Khouri is "still under investigation by the FBI" in 2007.

I guessed audiences might just give Khouri the benefit of the doubt once she invoked the need for utmost secrecy and subterfuge. Instead, the audiences I sat with slowly became just as disillusioned as the duped people on the screen. Once they caught on, there was plenty counter-derision and catcalls; earlier, stressed sighs had emanated from audiencemembers who just didn't know how to take Khouri's evolving contradictions.

The filmmaker gets props for so beautifully spanning this convoluted tale from beginning to end, not leaving anything out--not even her own self-sacrifice.

Anna opens her film with a sympathetic book narration by Khouri herself. The putated reason for authoring it is retold very believably at first--key to how a lifelong liar operates: in half-truths. Khouri is nevertheless a very pretty and smart 35yr-old with rather disarming charm, and surprisingly, worked-out biceps.

Gradually we're introduced to less-and-less-adulating Aussie journos, publishers and fans who at first bought the extent of Khouri's honour-killing accusations hook, line and sinker. Later we see their more rueful reactions, quite self-controlled and matter-of-fact, if some perhaps a little bitter.

It was Jordanian (anti-)honour-killing activists who took deepest umbrage at Khouri's fallacies because its pot-stirring forced them to reduce the pace of change. Honour-killings do happen in Jordan; it's just their prevalence that's at odds with Khouri's book--plus 72 other "facts". In 2003 these activists faxed (Australian) Random House with 73 painstakingly-checked objections.

The publishing houses across 4 continents who'd jumped at the chance to publish first-time author Khouri never tried to check any facts. Leaving any corroborration to a disclaimer in their author contract, they too were fair game. So a massive hot-topic fraud was as easy to perpetrate upon the world as typing it up in Internet cafes.

Later still we're shocked to discover that the "factual errors" extend to Khouri's bio as well. For one thing, she's not only not a 35yr-old virgin (her defence is that she merely didn't disabuse people of their assumptions), but she has a slickster husband and 2 teenagers! Sometimes she's just too fast-talking in her American accent. She also seems too-comfortable with cellphone technology and Western clothes. I realise observations like these might sound prejudicial to the very Jordanian women who don't need any Western paternalism from me, but when even cultural cues don't jibe in addition to Khouri's "facts", you've got to start questioning your source.

At some point the filmmaker came to the same conclusion. She makes an admirable effort to hold Khouri to account, in person, in Jordan. The last third is consumed with a fact-finding trip back to Amman, where one "fact" after another falls. Eventually Broinowski forces her (con)"Artist" to admit the decade-discrepancy in her story, and it's after this that Khouri records her derisive secret confession into her own digital camera. Secret, because in it Khouri's "American security guard" Jeremy is heard to have an Australian accent: he's an actor! (We never find out how Anna uncovered it.)

So this becomes the filmmaker's triumph, as she never flags in her tone or commitment. Her on-camera revelations lead her audience to learn from the mistakes of others given such a litany of reasonable doubt, FBI documents--and Khouri's most shocking initial crime.

Anna Broinowski (watch-list her now) is even clever enough to use the one artistic device (key players cross-commenting on footage) to kill two birds--making her audiences want to drink from the same well again.

In fact, despite her deceptively demure approach, she made me re-confirm that Overington and Knox really DID win their 2004 Walkleys in Investigate Journalism for their "Norma Khouri Investigation".

Broinowski MADE ME LOOK.(10/10)@@@1 -Richard Dreyfus is not the star here. He has about three 20 second cameos and what is Gene Barry doing all over this movie? No idea, the director was probably his brother! This is a movie that makes no sense whatsoever. The inept writer/director (same dude) butchered up everyone's talent with his horrendous uh...work. I got the DVD for a penny so can't complain! But it's weird!And it makes you feel weirded out and in not a good way. This was the 70's and looks like the director was on a bad acid trip and wanted everyone to experience what it's like to be inside his head. It has a somewhat interesting and controversial concept, but like a scratched record, it quickly plays foul. It has that "Manson family on acid" vibe to it.

I have no idea how the other reviewer got all they did out of this movie? Maybe they worked in it back when? At any rate, be prepared to lose 80+ min of your life you'll never get back. Yes, it's that awful!@@@0 -What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.

The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.

But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing.@@@1 -....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being "generous" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed "frustrated" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of "big"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the "actors'" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures "scenes"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day!@@@0 -A best-selling book about honour killings in Jordan is withdrawn by its publishers after allegations surface that the story has been fabricated; associated with other allegations of its author's past as a con-woman. A few years later, she resurfaces, conceding that she took a certain amount of dramatic licence but willing to cooperate with a film-maker to prove the substance of her allegations. What follows is a fascinating insight into a pathological personality, someone who's behaviour on one had makes no sense unless what she is saying is true, yet who is seemingly incapable of saying anything that is not astonishingly dramatic but unproven at best and most often, verifiably false. It's almost impossible to imagine what Ms. Khouri hoped to gain by appearing in this film: vindication? celebrity? - all she does achieve is to project a certain image of herself as a deeply damaged individual, and even that cannot be taken at face value. Director Anna Broinowski appears increasingly on camera as her film progresses, and increasingly exasperated to boot; but she is finally rewarded with a remarkable, although scary and disturbing, tale to tell - and one of those films that reminds us what a thoroughly weird world it is we live in.@@@1 -it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.

this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.

the plot.

I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.

"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.@@@0 -You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.

One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.

What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.

For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.

Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.

Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).

And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.@@@1 -"The Second Coming Of Suzanne" is yet another one of those surrealistic films that tries to come across as extremely sophisticated, yet all it does is put the viewer to sleep. Like other movies of this type, there is limited dialogue. Everyone is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of the shot. However, the cinematography stinks so there is nothing at all to keep your attention.

The video box states that this film is "one of the most exciting visual adventures ever seen on film." Yeah...sure. It's right up there with watching such stimulating events as a bucket of ice melting or a turtle walking for a mile. 1/10@@@0 -I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.

The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.

Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.

The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.

The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.

This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.

Go see it, if you get the chance.@@@1 -Richard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the "obsessed" filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term "erotic" quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne," was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's "Ulysses", and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal," I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like "Last Year at Marianbad" and "Un Chien Andalou." If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from "Bye, Bye, Brasil" to "Cecil B. Demented."@@@0 -I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.

The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.

Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)

@@@1 -Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song "Suzanne" being played over and over throughout the movie until when "The Second Coming of Suzanne" is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.

This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.

With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.

The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?

There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.

The movie "The Second Coming of Suzanne" goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.

Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow "The Second Coming of Suzanne" puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.@@@0 -How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.@@@1 -This dreadful film assembles every Asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. Money grubbing, devious Japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman Pat Morita to recover industrial secrets in Detroit. Here he encounters a down at heel Jay Leno, who promptly refers to a murder victim as a Jap and calls Morita Tojo. It's all downhill from there.@@@0 -Without "mental anachronism", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the "disenchantment of the world". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of "primitive thought". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance.@@@1 -This is a really stupid movie in that typical 80s genre: action comedy. Conceptwise it resembles Rush Hour but completely lacks the action, the laughs and the chemistry between the main characters of that movie. Let it be known that I enjoy Jay Leno as a stand-up and as a talk show host, but he just cannot act. He is awful when he tries to act tough - he barely manages to keep that trademark smirk off his face while saying his one-liners which, by the way, aren't very funny. And seeing him run (even back then) is not a pleasant sight. In addition, I have a feeling that Pat Morita - at least by today's standards - doesn't give a very politically correct impression of the Japanese. Don't even get me started about the story. I give it a 2 out of 10.@@@0 -I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.

This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.

One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.

What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.

The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans?@@@1 -This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!@@@0 -Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.

Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.

EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.

EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.

All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.

EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10@@@1 -"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK@@@0 -How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.

Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.

I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.@@@1 -There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. "A buddy film," "an action/comedy," "mystery." Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as "Happy Days," and the dismal but affable "Mr. T and Tina." And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, "Midway," "The Karate Kid," and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.@@@0 -I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.

A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.

I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.@@@1 -Collusion Course is even worse than the typical "evil white male corporate capitalist" movie of the week. This movie is less pleasant than a toothache. Jay Leno can act. He's good in his underrated debut movie, The Silverbears, in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. This movie is so bad Leno's character, a sanctimonious buffoon, is less annoying than Morita's character, a sanctimonious fool.@@@0 -In 1594 in Brazil, the Tupinambas Indians are friends of the Frenches and their enemies are the Tupiniquins, friends of the Portugueses. A Frenchman (Arduíno Colassanti) is captured by the Tupinambás, and in spite of his trial to convince them that he is French, they believe he is Portuguese. The Frenchman becomes their slave, and maritally lives with Seboipepe (Ana Maria Magalhães). Later, he uses powder in the cannons that the Portuguese left behind to defeat the Tupiniquins in a battle. In order to celebrate the victory, the Indians decide to eat him.

"Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" is another great low budget movie of the great Brazilian director Nélson Pereira dos Santos. The screenplay is very original and the story is spoken in Tupi. The film is shot using natural light most of the time and is very realistic. The actors and actresses perform naked and Ana Maria Magalhães is magnificent, showing a wonderful body and giving a stunning performance. The sound is produced by the Brazilian musician Zé Rodrix. This movie shows the beginning of the exploitation of my country by Europeans, focusing in the Portuguese and French at that time, trading with the Indians and exchanging combs and mirrors by our natural resources. This movie was awarded in the national festivals, such as the 1971 Brazilian Cinema Festival of Brasília (Festival de Brazília do Cinema Brasileiro) with Best Screenplay (Nelson Pereira dos Santos), Best Dialog (Nelson Pereira dos Santos and Humberto Mauro) and Best Cenograph (Régis Monteiro); Art Critics Association of São Paulo (Associação Paulista dos Críticos de Arte), with best Revelation of the Year (Ana Maria Magalhães) and some other prizes. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês" ("How Tasty Was My Frenchman")@@@1 -The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.@@@0 -I love this movie very much i watched it over and over. I don't see why anyone would think this movie wasn't good. Maybe you have seen better or whatever it is i personally love it. It is one of my favorite movies and I am not Hindi at all but i do love it. It might be a little like "Pretty Woman" but i haven't seen that and I don't think it's any better than this. I don't know why you are all trashing about it but maybe you have a good reason but I think i have said it enough but i absolutely love this movie, and to those who say it's not good at all well then I wonder why you watched it and what movies you consider good. As for everyone else that i watched it with they enjoyed it too so it surprises me that this many people don't like it. As for Rani Mukherjee ( i think thats how you spell her last name) she is very beautiful and my favorite actress ever!@@@1 -I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.

Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10.

I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...@@@0 -This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10@@@1 -So I finally saw the film "My Left Foot" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.

The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.

There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.

So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.@@@0 -After a love triangle story in Har Dil Jo Pyaar Karega these 3 stars were again chosen in this controversial flick. The film would have been considered as hit if there was not a controversy with the production values from Bharat Shah. Here director duo Abbas-Mustan did a very different and unique job as compared with their previous and after directorial ventures. They are considered as thriller makers of Bollywood. But in this CCCC they proved that they can equally handle to make a romantic family drama. Hardly there is a single action scene when Preity was being raped by Salman's colleague in her apartment, Salman slapped him.

The movie has almost all the standards and ingredients like song, story, casting, performances etc. which are required to make a movie hit. But of course for Salman's fan this was something a surprise gift from him. Why? Because for so long he has been doing roles where he has a scene to show his open body and dance la-la-la all around. His role as a rich young businessman who has no-nonsense nature and of normal attitude is really impressive. After all Madhubala, a prostitute role performed by Preity is amazing. Later when she too turns out thoughtful about her life she deserve proper attention. Her facial expressions and body language become more attractive, and focus mainly goes to her. Her previous role as a pregnant woman in Kya Kehna was not that heart-touching as it is here. Of course, this can be termed as improvement. Then Priya, a very innocent and helpless wife of Raj who only depends on him for a better result. She has nothing powerful influence in the story as the main ingredients are in the hands of Preity.

Finally, the main point of the story which is something rare and unique in itself. In real world of this age it is not totally impossible to happen such step of searching for a surrogate mother. Perhaps, many are happening in this large world where these are kept secret. And in this way the scriptwriter of CCCC has uncovered a hidden truth which is taking place in others daily lives. But still then it is a doubt.@@@1 -This movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.@@@0 -This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?

The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.

Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.

The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.

The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.

7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity!@@@1 -This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.@@@0 -......... and you get Chori Chori Chupke Chupke. Don't get me wrong, this movie is much less explicit (or not even) than Pretty Woman, but it (was) a new topic for Bollywood. The topic was accepted but it is far from Jism, Murder, and Julie. To tell you the truth, the topic is presented in a very clean manner. But the plot has it's number of clichés. The beginning of the movie is presented in a very "filmi" way. There are some very little plot holes. The movie picks up once Rani has her miscarriage where you feel that you are watching something other than a typical movie. Otherwise the whole family sequence felt overdone in the beginning. The acting couldn't have been any better. Salman Khan sometimes impresses, and sometimes lets you down. Over here he gave one of the best performances. On top of that his role is written so well, that you applaud every time he solves a problem. Rani Mukherjee was adequate. Throughout the movie, you feel for her character the most, but she is overshadowed by Preity Zinta. Preity Zinta is picture perfect. Out of the three, she gives everyone a run for their money. Its surprising how she can be just as convincing when she is innocent. And trust me, Madhubala is far from your girl next door. This role is one of the reasons why I rate her high. The supporting cast are like the family you see in HAHK, where they have no significance to the plot yet I found them tolerable here. The songs are pretty nice. The title song is my favorite of them all along with Dil Tera Mera Dil (Hearts). Mehndi Mehndi (Henna) and Dekhne Walon Ne (Look at the World's Sight) are two song that fit the film perfectly. Preity's cabaret number, Diwani Diwani (Crazy), could've been shortened while No. 1 Punjabi came across boring though it had good dancing. Otherwise the movie is definitely worth a watch.@@@1 -Yes, you guessed it. Another movie where identical twins switch places. I think now that the Olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re-runs of 'Full House'. If you plan on seeing this film, don't. Watch 'The Parent Trap' instead. It's more entertaining.@@@0 -The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer!@@@1 -i saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins@@@0 -CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars.

It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out.

The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.

The songs of the film are great. My favourites are "Chori Chori Chupke Chupke", Dekhne Walon Ne", "Deewana Hai Yeh Mann" and "Mehndi". The song "Mehndi" is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10!@@@1 -A sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots "terrorizing" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative "the Phantom" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV movie.@@@0 -A few years ago, a friend got from one of his other friends a video with the Michael Mann film 'Heat' on it. After we finished that movie, and were about to stand up, we saw that there is another film just after, tough on the cassette's envelope the owner didn't write it up. Yet we were all glued back to our seats by its distinct opening, which lacked credits.

Some two hours later, I just sat there wondering: how could I not have heard of this masterpiece before?...

This film was Europa. Lars von Trier woke film noir from the dead, deconstructed reality with intentionally obvious sets, yet often there was haunting similarity with post-war German photographs I saw. And then the tricky cuts!

The story itself is a hard-to-take moral odyssey that has no happy end. A young American pacifist of German descent comes to post-war Germany, intent on doing some good to pay for the bombs his countrymen dropped. But he mostly meets distrust and self-destructive defiance. He hires with Zentropa, a dining-and-sleeping-car company (modeled on Mitropa), whose owner is one of the Nazi collaborators the Occupiers whitewash. Our hero falls in love with his daughter - who later turns out to be a member of the Werewolf, Nazi post-war terrorists. When he doesn't understand the world (or just Europeans) anymore, in his rage he blows up a railroad bridge under a train which he just saved.

As a final note, for historical correctness: in the real world, the Werewolf were nowhere as important as the film implies, they were mostly a final Nazi propaganda coup. After an SS unit assassinated the major of Allied-occupied Aachen, two months before the capitulation, the Nazis announced the creation of whole legions of saboteurs and terrorists who will be ready to fight behind the lines, the Werewolf. But only a few hundred of mostly Hitler Youth received some training, and while two or three times some were deployed to murder suspected communists or forced-labourer foreigners in Bavarian villages to imprint lasting fear on inhabitants, with Hitler's death and the war's end it all fell apart.

However, the Werewolf propaganda had a profound effect on the occupiers. They feared the Werewolf everywhere, suspected it behind any serious accident - but without exception another cause was found later (ignored by some recent pseudo-historians). For example, when a gas main exploded in the police HQ of bombed-out Bremen, or when the Soviet military commander died in a motorbike accident in Berlin. The effect was strongest on the Soviets, who arrested tens of thousands (in large part children!) 'preemptively' on suspicion of being Werewolf, and closed them off in prison camps where a lot of them died.@@@1 -Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)

There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.

Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)@@@0 -This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A@@@1 -96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.

Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: "Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!" Lily says responds with something like: "You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track." What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.

If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago.@@@0 -I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie.@@@1 -Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.@@@0 -An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work.@@@1 -This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.

The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.

The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.

If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".@@@0 -Thre isn't a single Scorsese movie I'd place on a list of my favorite movies. But this is the best thing I've run through my DVD player in about five years. Scorsese's patient elucidation of favorite film moments, and how Hollywood works is incredibly gracious, calm and intelligent.

It's 3 DVD-sides worth of material. It would have to be a British production, since everything about American corporate culture would have trampled the quiet, methodical, no frills, put-the-focus-on-the-content approach that is taken here. And an American production would have demanded he say he liked only movies that were popular favorites. I wish everyone took a page from his love of movies. You should love the movies you do for personal, idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Not just more "Me-too" votes for The Godfather, etc.. People have no clue what ideas are being explored in their favorite movies. If they did, movies would be more interesting than they are. Scorsese DOES know what ideas are being explored, and that makes him a compelling, involved speaker on the topic. I really appreciate his articulate, generous interviews over the last decade.

On a negative note, Scorsese is best when he's excited to show you some obscure movie, rather than when he's didactically teaching you something well-established about film history. And I do wish he pluck those three hairs out of the bridge of his nose. It's very distracting.@@@1 -We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.

We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.

IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.@@@0 -Prolific and highly influential filmmaker Martin Scorsese examines a selection of his favorite American films grouped according to three different types of directors: the director as an illusionist: D.W. Griffith or F. W. Murnau, who created new editing techniques among other changes that made the appearance of sound and color later step forward; the director as a smuggler: filmmakers such as Douglas Sirk, Samuel Fuller, and mostly Vincente Minnelli, directors who used to disguise rebellious messages in their films; and the director as iconoclast: those filmmakers attacking civil observations and social hang-ups like Orson Welles, Erich von Stroheim, Charles Chaplin, Nicholas Ray, Stanley Kubrick, and Arthur Penn.

He shows us how the old studio system in Hollywood was, though oppressive, the way in which film directors found themselves progressing the medium because of how they were bound by political and financial limitations. During his clips from the movies he shows us, we not only discover films we've never seen before that pique our interest but we also are made to see what he sees. He evaluate his stylistic sensibilities along with the directors of the sequences themselves.

The idea of a film canon has been reputed as snobbish, hence some movie fans and critics favor to just make "lists." However, canon merely denotes "the best" and supporters of film canon argue that it is a valuable activity to identify and experience a select compilation of the "best" films, a lot like a greatest hits tape, if just as a beginning direction for film students. All in all, one's experience has shown that all writing about film, including reviews, function to construct a film canon. Some film canons can definitely be elitist, but others can be "populist." As an example, the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 Movies list includes many films included on several "elitist" film canons but also features recent Hollywood blockbusters at which many film "elitists" scoff, like The Dark Knight, which presently mingles in the top ten amidst the first two Godfather films, Schindler's List and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the fluctuation of similar productions further down such as Iron Man, Sin City, Die Hard, The Terminator and Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Writer Scorsese's Taxi Driver Paul Schrader has straightforwardly referred to his canon as "elitist" and contends that this is positive.

Scorsese is never particularly vocal at all about his social and political ideologies, but when we see this intense and admittedly obsessive history lesson on the birth and growth of American cinema in both ideological realms, we see that there is really no particular virtue in either elitism or populism. Elitism concentrates all attention, recognition and thus power on those deemed outstanding. That discrimination could easily lead to self-indulgence much in the vein of the condescending work of Jean-Luc Godard or the overrationalization of the production practices of a filmmaker like Michael Haneke. Yet populism invokes a belief of representative freedom as being only the assertion of the people's will. As has been previously asserted about the all-encompassing misconceptions the people have about cinema, populism could be the end of the potential power and impact of cinema. One can only continue seeing films, because it is a vital social and metaphysical practice. And that's what Martin Scorsese spends nearly four hours here trying to tell us, something which can't be told without being seen first-hand.@@@1 -Any film with a title as ridiculous as "The Bagman" should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only.@@@0 -When the British Film Institute asked Martin Scorcese to create the American part of its Century of the Cinema series, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands. A Personal Journey through American Movies is a fascinating, wide-ranging and, as the title says, a highly personal look at Hollywood cinema.

Scorcese's story is primarily about Hollywood's directors – actors, producers, screenwriters and other collaborators barely get a mention. He states right from the beginning that for him the primary conflict within the film industry is that between the director's vision and the distributor's profit motive, between art and commercial viability. He even opens with a clip from Vincente Minnelli's The Bad and the Beautiful, one of the earliest films to openly explore this contradiction. This dictates the structure for the documentary. Scorcese looks at how genres have darkened and clichés have become challenged, how mavericks have challenged the production code, and how certain filmmakers fell from grace when they dared to be different. However, Scorcese never falls into the auteurist trap of dismissing directors who consistently pleased the studio bosses (he lavishes praise on Cecil B. De Mille), or those who had less of a recognisable style but were master craftsmen of the cinema nonetheless.

Scorcese doesn't necessarily focus on his absolute favourite directors either (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, two of Scorcese's biggest influences, are only mentioned in passing). Instead, he looks at the individuals and the films that serve to tell his story. For example, he shows us a succession of John Ford films to show how the western evolved. He looks at the work of Vincente Minnelli (probably the most often referenced director of the documentary) to show how a supposedly wholesome genre like the musical could also have darker undercurrents. I can imagine that, had this assignment not been limited to America, Scorcese would have also loved to talk about, for example his Italian influences or his British hero Michael Powell. As it is, he stretches the definition of American movies to include both the Hollywood films of immigrant directors such as FW Murnau, Billy Wilder and Douglas Sirk, as well as the work of US-born filmmakers that was produced elsewhere – such as that of Stanley Kubrick.

Rather than simply tell the story of Hollywood chronologically, Scorcese compares films from various eras in order to tackle various subjects. In his section on the language and tools of cinema, he begins with DW Griffith, looks at the coming of sound, colour and widescreen and inevitably ends up going over computer generated effects which, although Scorcese is not keen on them, he is even-handed enough to include clips of George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola defending them. However, he doesn't simply finish the chapter here as if this is the end of it. Instead, he then rewinds back to the 1940s, to show how a low-budget horror like The Cat People can achieve effective results from the simplest and cheapest of elements.

A Personal Journey through American Movies has to be one of the best film documentaries made. There were a number of outstanding directors and pictures which I would never have discovered without, and even the most seasoned of film buffs would be likely to find something new in its broad scope. Scorcese has also restored the balance to forgotten or undervalued pictures. I was pleased to see that, when he talks about Kubrick in his "Iconoclasts" chapter, he looks at Lolita and Barry Lindon, for me his two most underrated films. Scorcese's respect for the medium is on display in the way he allows clips to play out fully, rather than just giving us tiny bits, and he interrupts them with talking heads (a combination of archive and new interviews) only when necessary. There is a bit of bias towards the 40s and 50s, but that is hardly surprising since it is the era in which Scorcese grew up and discovered cinema. And after all, I don't think this documentary could have been achieved had it not been a personal journey.

One word of warning though, in its in depth look at certain pictures, this documentary does contain a fair few spoilers.@@@1 -To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.

Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.

My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice.@@@0 -As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.@@@1 -Dear Friends and Family,

I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, "birth control" doesn't mean "oral sex", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a "bit of a romantic guy", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.

Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.

I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.@@@0 -Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.

@@@1 -Inspector Gadget was probably my all-time favorite 80's cartoon. I enjoyed both the first and second seasons of the series as well as 1992's Christmas special "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas". Some Gadget fans are quick to criticize the second season (1985) of the show, but they need to compare it to DiC's 2002 release of "Inspector Gadget's Last Case: Claw's Revenge" for then, they will find the second season to be absolute gold.

Being a Gadget fan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to see the animated Inspector Gadget in something that wasn't Gadget Boy-related. I purchased the film, and I swore to myself that I'd be objective; I knew that sometimes artistic liberties would be taken from the original series. I was not even prepared for what I was about to watch.

There was barely a shred of the original show still intact.

Here is a short list of just some of the cons for this movie: *The humor is non-existent from the original series.

*Penny and Brain (originally having a nearly equal part in the series as Gadget) are missing from the action for fifteen to twenty minute intervals.

*The original music by Saban & Levy is not there, and the score that exists is sub-par. (Understood that Saban has his own production company now, but at least "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" had good music, even without Saban.) *Don't expect to see any of Gadget's gadgets which made the show so endearing, such as gadget-copter, gadget-brella, gadget-mallet,gadget-coat (which actually was used but it was not even called the same thing), as well as his standard other hat and hand gadgets. In this movie, his gadget legs were telescopic instead of springs. That kind of stuff annoys true fans of the show, and simply aren't necessary to change.

*The gadgetmobile from the original series is now a fast-talking, supposedly "hip" convertible. All the fans from the original series enjoyed the gadgetmobile transforming into the gadget van and vice versa.

*Chief Quimby is now very short-tempered and even mean to Gadget. He was always grumpy in the original series, but this pushes the situation a bit much.

*Penny no longer has a computer book.

Are there any positives to this movie? OK, here goes...

*Maurice LaMarche does a good job of taking over for the great Don Adams as Inspector Gadget.

*In one scene, Chief Quimby alludes to an actual villain from the cartoon series: the Great Wambini (classic "Gadget" villain from the second season, voiced by Louis Nye).

Looking for more redeeming factors for this movie? Well, you're out of luck. Life is about making choices and living by those choices. Most situations in life have a purpose even if it is to teach a lesson. The lesson learned here: keep to the original formula! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." True Gadget fans should steer clear from this movie; you will surely be disappointed.

Hopefully, DiC and Shout! Factory will continue to release more of the original series after the 2006 release of "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1," containing the first 22 episodes of the series. As a true Gadget fan, lover of 80's animation and many of DiC's programs, I urge you the viewer to purchase "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1" and "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" DVD's which are excellent and sure to bring back good memories.@@@0 -Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.

This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it.@@@1 -this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10@@@0 -RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.

Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in "Three on a Match" (1932) and a "flower girl" in both "This Side of Heaven" and "The Key" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the "stolen" brooch, the "red hair" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry.@@@1 -I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.

First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.

The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.

And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.

I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate it.@@@0 -Someone release this movie on DVD so it can take its hallowed place as on of the greatest films of all time in ten to twenty years when critics and film historians look back on the so-called films of the 1990's and see how vapid they were for the most part, and how Lars Von Trier tried to revolutionize and revitalize the international film world with this masterpiece. As it stands, "Zentropa" (or "Europa" as it is referred to outside the US) is one of the most fascinating and artistic views of the bleakness and almost psychotic uncertainty that oozed out of post WWII Europe, namely the decimated German landscape, whose physical horrors were matched only by the damage to the psyche of its people. Von Trier brilliantly paints his vision on screen. You will feel like you are watching some lost espionage noir classic from the late 1940's with the perfectly lighted black and white scenes, while at the same time feel you are on the brink of something beyond the cutting edge, especially in scenes like the assassination aboard the train. Literally, when you see this movie, you are witnessing the evolution of an art form.

For some reason, Von Trier got caught up in his own Dogma movement shortly after this. And while his "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark" are classics in their own right, it is with "Zentropa" that he truly lifted the art of film making to new and exciting heights. 10/10, ages like a fine wine, and begs for a DVD release.@@@1 -This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine.

I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.

I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.

Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.

Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit.

Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.

*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-@@@0 -In "Anne of Green Gables" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of "Alice" shorts who later would adopt her character's name).

Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.

In fact Anne is the original "Teenage Drama Queen" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists.

Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: "If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard.

Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.@@@1 -This film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.@@@0 -Vivacious & irrepressible, ANNE OF GREEN GABLES brings unlooked-for happiness into the lives of a lonely old sister & brother on Prince Edward Island.

Lucy Maud Montgomery's well-loved novel comes to life in this wonderful little movie. Excellent production values, a literate script and first class performances gives the story exactly the touch of quality it deserves.

Taking her professional name from the character she portrayed, actress Anne Shirley is a joy as the red-headed fourteen-year-old orphan who completely alters the lives of her new guardians. Completely assured in her starring role, Miss Shirley is a delight, entertaining the viewer with Anne's boundless imagination, quick temper and not-so-secret sorrows.

Playing the stern spinster who gives the girl a home, Helen Westley also completely commands her role; the viewer will enjoy seeing this sharp-tongued woman slowly unbend to Anne's affection and child-like innocence. Australian character actor O. P. Heggie gives one of his finest performances as Westley's shy, gentle brother who welcomes Anne into his heart from the moment he arrives to fetch her from the railroad station.

Tom Brown most agreeably plays the schoolboy who quickly grabs Anne's attention. Sara Haden is appropriately prickly as a nosy neighbor. Charley Grapewin makes the most of his few moments as Avonlea's doctor.@@@1 -"The Bubble" is an effort to make a gay Romeo & Juliet type of story with an Israeli and a Palestinian, although it seems to come at it by way of "Friends" or "Beverly Hills 90210." The characters are shallow and trite as are the dialog and plot line. The movie seems torn between fluff and depth. On the one hand there is a pointed effort at being shallow as (in one example of many) some minor characters even ask questions that invite development of insight into the conflicts at hand, and get answers like, "Hey, we're here to make a poster for a rave against the occupation. Don't get political!" Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a line, it's just one of many ham-fisted signals that the movie is just as hollow and insubstantial as its title suggests. On the other hand, the movie's main pretension to depth follows the lovers to a presentation of "Bent" a play about gays in a Nazi labor camp. The scene on stage is awkwardly rushed, undermining its erotic power (understandable given the constraints of film-time, but still this could have been edited to much better effect.) and comes off as flimsily as the rest of the film. Too bad. This play deserves much better.

The characters are so one-dimensionally cartoony some even have names that telegraph their entire (though the word seems inappropriate here) substance. The aggressive soldier from the crack Golani brigade is named "Golan." The militant Palestinian is named "Jihad." The striving-for-chic faghag roommate is "Lulu." Anyone familiar with the checkpoints and life in Palestine, whether from real life or documentaries will find the checkpoint scenes as absurdly unreal as… well, the rest of this fluffy fantasy. When a Palestinian woman goes into the fastest labor on record Israeli soldiers are solicitous and helpful, an ambulance shows up in minutes. (The outcome of the birth serves to show the Palestinians as unappreciative of Israeli beneficence and even downright paranoiac.) Altogether the checkpoint is shown as a mere nuisance, not the series of bone-numbing, soul-crushing, humiliating obstructions with no regard for medical care or necessity in cases of birth, death, or severe illness. Ashraf, the Palestinian lover, seems to get through from Nablus to Tel Aviv with no problems, no papers, no hassles. He just shows up whenever he likes. When the Israelis want to get through it is much more of a challenge involving a scheme worthy of Lucy Ricardo.

Against the backdrop of nice, supportive Israelis and surly homophobic Palestinians we move to a resolution that is utterly lacking in motivation or purpose – except as a painfully obvious dramatic device to milk sympathy for the forbidden lovers.

Gay Israeli-Palestinian romance has been handled on stage with much more skill and depth as in Saleem's "Salaam/Shalom" so this film is hardly even as groundbreaking as some people would like to think.

Gloriously bad films – like the works of Ed Wood -- at least have some striking idiosyncrasy to distinguish them. This one doesn't even have that going for it. Most of the sound track sounds like Simon and Garfunkel on quaaludes, and even with the weird oedipal touches to the gay sex scenes, the general incompetence that pervades this movie plays out like a mediocre TV-movie-of-the-week.@@@0 -Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,"Murder My Sweet",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films.@@@1 -Eytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as "Walk on Water" and the simply wonderful film, "Yossi & Jagger". In "The Bubble", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.

Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.

This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film "Paradise Now". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.

What a shameful, horrid little film!@@@0 -The cast is different and now they took a different approach we have the street smart team "Networth" vs . the supposed professional team "Magna" but boy if you think the street smart team would have trouble you'd be right. While the Magna team has struggled at times, the street team has simply disintegrated week after week.

First some things to reiterate as far as the "Apprentice 3" first of it continues the same absurd mentality (from Trump) and the game in this series: if your a good project manager, but you lose, the team will turn on you and you will be fired, despite the fact that your backstabbing teammates are often the ones who do half ass jobs. Simply absurd, that a game show that claims to hire the best candidate actually "weeds" out the best while the dysfunctional candidates stab each other until one is left and that person is the best . lol

Anyone this season, weve seen a total of cursing, backstabbing and even gay offensive stereotypes carried out as teams try to do campaigns.

The list of victims so far Cast Tara Dowdell , Audrey Evans , Danny Kastner those three are the only that I feel were unfairly fired by Trump, the rest really had it coming as they only incited conflict, anger and suffering. It's just amazing as one candidate Audrey Evans said as how she who did a good job was fired and how some of her worthless teammates are still in the game.

Yes its the game, it's "The Apprentice" where manipulation, backstabbing, and always popular "everyone gang up on the project manager" mentality rules.

It has been an entertaining ride, though, the candidates are given a wide array of assignments from photo shoots to the construction of mini golf courses, to building of new apartments.

Still though it's still the "Apprentice" though so all you can do basically is laugh the whole time as the insanity and chaos insues until lucky person is the winner.@@@1 -What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously "freak show," and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.@@@0 -For people interested in business and the corporate world, this show is simply the best of the best. As one of the former contestants of the show wrote in his blog about this innovative show: People in business finally had an audience. The whole idea is perfect; having a group of businesspeople competing against each other in business-related tasks, set in the best place in the world, New York City. Donald Trump is perfect as the boss, even though his ego is bigger than the whole universe times infinity. He also makes a lot of questionable decisions about whom to fire, which is one of the negatives about the show.

Season 1: Great season overall, the best season of the "normal" ones. This season was the one that was most about actual business skills. Later on the series almost drowned in marketing related tasks with way too many product placements. Great and interesting contestants overall, with the most likable character ever in this series: Troy. I know I'm not the only person who suspect that the Trump World Tower-episode where he got fired was rigged to have Amy and Nick win this particular task.

Season 2: Also a great season. The tasks were still pretty much OK, and it had many interesting contestants. Jen M was terrible and should never had made it to the final, IMO. Also, this season had the worst firing ever (Pamela).

Season 3: Terrible. Actually, I liked the concept of book smarts vs. street smarts, but the cast was so utterly terrible (it turned out that Trump hated the cast as well) that the whole season was a total disaster. Best moments was the second episode (motel renovation), with PM Brian fired, a guy who added nothing but huge amounts of comedy value.

Season 4: An excellent season, much because of the interesting and entertaining contestants this season (especially Randall, Alla, Marcus and the total disaster whose name was Toral). The "Take me out to the Boardroom" episode is one of the absolute classics of this show, ending with the well-remembered quadruple firing. Sadly, I think we got robbed for the Randall vs. Alla final. I think Trump was afraid that she could have won, and prevented that from happening.

Season 5: A boring season with really no special things to it. Brent was just an embarrassment and obviously only there to create drama. The tasks were terrible overall (how has creating a jingle anything to do with business at all?). I guess the best man won, but personally I couldn't care less.

Season 6: I can see why they wanted to try out L.A. as a new location for the show, but looking back it was a mistake. New York will always be the place for this. This season added so many new things, most of them terrible (like losing team having to sleep outside in tents, winning PM continues to be PM ,for example). The tasks were terrible and Trump also chose the wrong winner. James deserved it, no doubt.

Season 7: Celebrity edition. Best season ever. Totally different rules (like the use of rolodexes), but all fun and entertainment. The biggest problem was that many of the contestants were not real celebrities at all, especially the women where everyone were unknown to me except for Omarosa, who is a total disgrace to everything she takes part in. This looked to be Gene Simmon's season, but after he made a complete fool of himself during the Kodak task , another man emerged from the shadows: Piers Morgan. Never has anyone dominated a season like he did. He crushed his opponents and also came across as a guy with a great sense of humor (although some uptight Americans (not all Americans, of course, don't take me wrong) sadly didn't have the social skills to understand it). WAY TO GO PIERS!!

For fans of this i highly recommend the UK version starring Sir Alan Sugar as the boss. In fact, the British version is way better, and that says something since the American (and original) truly is a great show. One thing about the UK version is that the contestants normally tend to behave like decent human beings in the boardroom, unlike the constant yelling and rude behavior that takes place in the US version.@@@1 -I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.@@@0 -The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.

Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.

The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.

The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.

The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.

The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team.

My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?

The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.@@@1 -I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.@@@0 -I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.

The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.

In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST.@@@1 -I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.

I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.

In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.@@@0 -Wow what an episode! After last week seeing Mellisa constantly making cameos about the friendship of Annie and Brandi I almost puked. But that was nothing until seeing Mellisa's tirade after being fired. Seeing her hobble around on her cast spewing out obscenities and screaming for someone to get her purse was absolutely the most hilarious thing ever on reality TV. She continued to scream at people off set to get her clothes "all of them" like someone else would wear one of her hideous outfits. Mellisa you are like 40 years old and you still throw temper tantrums? Then Joan starts calling Annie and Brandie every name in the book, and gets up and quits the show! Both Rivers are spoiled brats who were only left on the show this long to keep ratings up. Mellisa crying and refusing to do an exit interview, just proves to America what everyone thought, you are a spoiled baby. WAH WAH I can't get my way! I love how Annie told the cameras she could manipulate Mellisa to think her way, and then did exactly that. Mellisa is by far the smartest contestant and clearly deserves to win the whole game.@@@1 -*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.

This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.

The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.

In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.

In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.

Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.

What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.

The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.

Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.

rating: C@@@0 -Season after season, the players or characters in this show appear to be people who you'd absolutely love to hate. Is this show rigged to be that or were they chosen for the same? Each episode vilifies one single person specifically and he ends up getting killed off. You enjoy seeing them get screwed although its totally wrong and sick. You enjoy seeing them screwing others, getting screwed themselves, playing dirty, getting it back, escaping and finally getting kicked out by Trump. The amount of tears also seems to be increasing by the season.

The rewards which attempt to compensate for past humiliation and suffering are also heavily reduced. In the newer seasons, its like "You get to meet xyx who'll lecture you about uvw"..like who freaking cares? The characters are so hateable, collectively and individually, that you wonder if they're paid actors? The only sane one gets to win.

Watch with caution and maintain a conscience. Those are your fellow human beings in the firing line.@@@1 -The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.

Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.

This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.

And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.

I rate this 4/10 for effort.@@@0 -I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better.@@@1 -A good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. Peter Ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. Regardless of the favorable comments here, this film is awful. Badly directed. Badly edited. Badly acted. Badly written. You need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad.

The muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns Ustinov conning his way into an American insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. How he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets, and hoodwinks computer expert Robert Morley into going to South America and stealing his identity).

As a side plot, Ustinov romances fellow loner Maggie Smith, who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. She ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with Bob Newhart that go nowhere, while Ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of Newhart and Karl Malden. Then he Marries Smith and they fly off to Brazil, which has become the staple finale of almost every British caper comedy since (Nuns on the Run? A Fish Called Wanda?)

The surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. By the end I was thinking I must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. Even a cameo by Cesar Romero didn't help it. One of the most unfunny, poorly paced 'comedies' I've ever seen, and certainly the worst caper. Don't waste your time. If you love this you need to see better films.@@@0 -It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit.@@@1 -here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.

(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards.

It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.

On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless.

At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.@@@0 -This is one of may all-time favourite films. Parker Posey's character is over-the-top entertaining, and the librarian motif won't be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the books and stacks world.

If you're a library student, RENT THIS. Then buy the poster and hang it on your wall. The soundtrack is highly recommendable too. I've shown this film to more library friends than any other -- they all fall in love with it.@@@1 -A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.

4.@@@0 -This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see!@@@1 -I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.@@@0 -Myself and my groovadelic 20-something pals just can't get enough of this awesome Parker Posey CLASSIC! I tried renting this on DVD, but can't seem to find it - too bad, as I'm sure the features would be "extra special" !! :) We all highly recommend this uber-cool comedy flickerino for a date, or even just a cozy night home alone! This would also be the purr-fect type of movie to watch with your cat, or even throw a party based on, like a "Party Girl" party, just like the one in the movie that the lovable, huggable, squeezable Parker Posey goes to at the end. Oh, and be on the lookout for a gripping and HILARIOUS surprise ending... move aside, The Sixth Sense, you've just been outdone by a way radder movie! Sorry, no offense, just calling it like it is! Take it from an old flick lover, comedy just doesn't get better than "Party Girl" with Parker P! Feel it! Yours, Ronald Marie MacDougall (aka DJ Cyber-Rap)@@@1 -Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.

The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.

Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's "Marie Antoinette." Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.

This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."

Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.@@@0 -A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie "Clockwatchers" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy!@@@1 -This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.@@@0 -I remember Parker Posey on "As The World Turns" before she became the Queen of the Independent movies. In this film, Posey shows her potential as a top fledged actress. In this film with supporting cast that includes Omar Townsend as Moustafa, a Lebanese immigrant who works as a falafel salesman on the street, who aspires to become a teacher. The supporting cast features a wonderful actress who plays her godmother and only family relative as Judy, the librarian who is old fashioned, dedicated and menopausal. Posey as Mary learns that she has to grow up and mature. Losing her librarian clerk position makes her realize how much she misses it as a place in her life. Mary's life is surrounded by friends in the Lower East Side Village of New York City before it became gentrified with yuppies. This film is quite good for an independent and I have come to enjoy Parker Posey as Mary as well as other characters in other films.@@@1 -the more i think about it, there was nothing redeeming about this

movie. i saw it 9 months ago, so my memory might have made it

worse than it was, but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of

10.

after seeing the movie, i met the director. he seemed so clueless

as to what he was doing or what he had done, and as far as i

could tell, he didn't care for the film either. even he agreed that he

didn't really know what he was doing, and he was forced to do

certain things because it was filmed digitally.

i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that it

built for itself: "9 people all have to be connected in some way. how

can we get from point 'A' to point 'B'" so in order get from the

prostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10

minutes on each character's relationship to another person. it

makes one feel choked by the 2 demensional, badly drawn

characters.

I just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie... Steve

Bouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that's it. as i

say... 4 out of 10.@@@0 -He-he-hello!! This is a really fun movie. Basically, in Party Girl, you have your fun-lovin', independent, early 90's New Yorker chick. Along with her party friends, she meets a mature Turkish Vendor. It is a comming of age story for those new adults who are searching for what they want to do. It is comforting to see a female slacker develop into a mature woman. Hope is given to all of us slackers who might feel like their only skills are being able to maintain while hammered and a nack for throwing good parties.

On a side note, Parker Posey makes this movie great. I have never been a great fan of her, but this movie makes me just want to watch all of her movies. There are subtle manerisms that perfected her character. If you want good laughs and a fun time, make sure to watch this movie. Repeated viewings are a must.@@@1 -The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.@@@0 -am i the only one who saw the connection between the discussion of camus 'the myth of sisyphus' and mary's life? in camus version a man is condemned to spend his eternity with a giant boulder that he must roll up a hill. unfortunately every time he reaches the top the boulder slips and ends up back at the bottom for him to start. there may have been a buzzard pecking at his eyes, i'm not sure right now. in the movie mary spends her life struggling to get her life together, unfortunately every time she gains any footing she falls and loses everything. case in point would be the party she throws where she gets intoxicated, offends her falafel lover, and is practically attacked by liev schrieber. in case you question this theory, note how this scene ends with her attempting to climb a flight of stars while books fall from nowhere impeding her progress until ultimately she passes out. the next morning when she awakens she is still on the stairs, never having reached the top.@@@1 -** CONTAINS SPOILERS **

The truly exquisite Sean Young (who in some scenes, with her hair poofed up, looks something like Elizabeth Taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. Sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust, her face and body are tense and distracted. Unfortunately, once the bust is over Young's strained demeanor never changes. This is one fatally inhibited actress.

One has only to compare Young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend, Arnetia Walker, to grasp what is missing in Young. Walker is open, emotional, and at ease at all times...in that there's no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. She is an open book. Young, on the other hand, acts in the skittish, self-conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. Basically, she doesn't have a clue.

With this major void looming at the center of the movie, we're left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. For instance, after Miss Young is kidnapped by the criminal she's trailing and locked in a closet, she breaks the door down when left alone. Granted, she's dressed only in a bra and panties, but in a similar situation, with a psycho captor due to return any moment, would you head for the door...or take the time to go through his dresser, take out some clothes and get dressed? I would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions Miss Young's character is experiencing, but Young can not convey this type of complexity.

There are a few affecting moments in the film, such as the short police interviews with the criminal's past victims, but overall this is an aimless endeavor. It's too bad Miss Young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (BATMAN and DICK TRACY), because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. Watching Miss Young try to act, at least in this "thriller", is a sad spectacle.@@@0 -This movie was such a blast! It has that feel-good, yet totally in your face attitude that draws me to a movie. It has a good message (party girl decides she needs a real job) yet she doesn't completely lose all sense of fun. I recommend this movie for anyone who needs some humor, but is also a thinker! :)@@@1 -Just as "ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen "SAVING SILVERMAN") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.

Rating: 1/2* out of *****@@@0 -Okay. This has been a favourite since I was 14. Granted, I don't watch it multiple times a year anymore, but... This is not a movie for an older generation who want a deeper meaning or some brilliant message. This movie is FUN. It's pretty dated, almost passe, but Parker Posey is so brilliant that it's unbelievable. If you want to be charmed by a 90's Breakfast at Tiffany's, attended 90's raves, or love Parker, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother.@@@1 -A one is the highest rating I could have given this movie, considering zero and negative numbers are not allowed. Pee yew, pointless mess of a movie with a lot of wasted b-list actors who have done better work, written and directed by some guy with the mentality of a twelve year old who smirks and giggles at stupid puns, and poop and fart jokes. For example, Gene Stapelton's (Ding-Bat from All in the Family) character telling Marilu Henner's character that she "swings both ways" sexually, was a cheap attempt at humor indicative of the general lameness of the movie... You want good, cheeky humor? Rent Animal House, American Pie (part one only), Old School or Office Space.@@@0 -I loved this movie, and I am one of the older people who is not supposed to enjoy it, or so it seems. No, this movie is not deep -- who cares? These kinds of movies never are. But strangely, there is a message in it. It's that we each have the potential to be whatever we want to be.

Parker Posey is great in this movie. I've always thought that she bears some resemblance facially to Katharine Hepburn. So, it's great to see that both Hepburn and Posey made movies about librarians (Hepburn's is The Desk Set). All librarians, especially those with a sense of humor, should see Party Girl.

I gave this movie an 8. It is not by any means a great film by cinematic standards, although there are some nice shots in it. But it is incredibly charming and entertaining.@@@1 -Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.

The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars.@@@0 -This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say "This is THE final movie in the series..."@@@1 -***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?

"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.

Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel." Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.

"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.

My score: 4 (out of 10)@@@0 -I remember seeing this years ago when it first came out and I was floored by Parker Posey's performance. And the movie was pretty good also. For anyone who's spent a little too much time in the nightclub/after-hours scene, this movie will have a special charm for you. Not too serious, mostly funny, and Parker Posey definitely blazes her talented way through this indie gem.

I especially liked the Diaz character (reminded me of every single struggling DJ I've ever known). And many other movies could take a cue from this movie on how to preach the virtue of responsibility without being boring and bland about it.

Babaganoosh!@@@1 -**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet.

And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.

Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes.

In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.

And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.

I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.

It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.@@@0 -This film is a delightful, light hearted look at both sides of where the "club kid" rave scene blends with the New York art, music and performance art worlds (with a cameo by the omnipresent Miss Bunny). This is "Torch Song Trilogy" for the perky-post-teen girls. "That Girl" for our disaffected, affected millennium times.

The dialogue is fast and funny, and Parker Posey's costumer deserves - if not an academy award, at least - a stadium "wave" of kudos.

Of course, this film rests on the very stylish platform heels of Miss Posey, and she is perfectly cast. Like a lot of her acting work, it may not be very deep, it is often self-referential and, well, posey... but it all WORKS. She is a talented comedienne, an incredible entertainer, and this film entertains, she carries it on her shoulders like a faux leopard wrap, and never lets it drop to the floor.

Mary is a superficial party fashionista who isn't above stealing designer clothing from a friend's closet or making out with someone else's boyfriend. On a deeper level, this is a story of a girl and her friends who are care-less in every sense of the word, including about other people; and the process of learning that caring is necessary to life.

The script is beautifully crafted, witty, and the only performance that disappoints is the Aunt, in a role that was much too one-dimensional and heavy handed; a more nuanced performance from her, would have deepened the relationship between the two... but... hey... this is comedy. A surprisingly deep role, that gives this film some substance and world vision, is the fallafel selling boyfriend. We should all be so lucky... is he the one for Mary? or the one that gets away?

I rate this as a 8 because it isn't a great moment of film history, it is not a classic, and it is not great art (all of which get deeper and richer on re-viewing). Like "Desperately Seeking Susan" it represents something very true about it's time period, but may become irrelevant with time. Still, it has everything an entertaining film needs, and is worth viewing several times for the clothes alone!@@@1 -I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.@@@0 -"Party Girl" capitalizes on the tremendous charm of Parker Posey. In fact, at times, the movie seems to be a vehicle in which Ms. Posey is allow to play herself, as she normally is in real life.

The film, directed by Daisy Von Scherler Mayer, is a treat for Ms. Posey's fans. Ms. Von Scherler Mayer takes us on a wild trip into lower Manhattan to show us this aimless soul whose life is dedicated to have fun in the different clubs she constantly frequents. This is an era that still was more naive than what that area and the adjacent Meat Market districts became. At least, there are no pretensions in the films and we see down to earth people going about their lives in a normal way, if we can call it that way.

Parker Posey makes an amazing Mary. It's because of Parker Posey we enjoy the movie more than if another actress would have played Mary. She is the whole picture. The rest of the cast is good.@@@1 -Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.

Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.

Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.@@@0 -This movie should be required viewing for all librarians or would-be librarians. All of the best lines are directly related to librarianship. The public library vs. academic library argument is a classic argument waged among librarians and library school students. It also breaks many librarian stereotypes. Librarians might even be capable of having fun -- even if they don't *usually* have sex in the romance languages section! (The best movie about librarians? Desk Set, with Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, of course.)@@@1 -This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.

Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.

Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.

Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.

It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.

Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.@@@0 -A French film Ester Williams would love. But the synchronized swimming was only a hook for the story of three girls in a Paris exurbia finding themselves. No question where Sciamma's sympathies lie as all the boys are depicted as "animaux" but actually only the 3 girls are in focus, and for the entire time, with the few adults and the other adolescents being mostly in the background. Marie is a stick of a girl, unattractive, but determined. She wants to be a swimmer and forces herself on Floriane ( a Renascence quality beauty per one reviewer) and she is also a friend of convenience to Anna: not unattractive, but for her, the time of her body's perfection was short, and now she is an adolescent in a women's body. What ensues is a journey to self-realization without a road map but there is a glumness about the three that is un-natural: where is the gaiety and mindless chatter of youth? While the dénouement was breath taking, with Floriane's self-absorption beautifully portrayed, as well as the equally beautiful union of Marie and Anne, it all seemed abstract, Sciamma's puppets.@@@1 -Man, this was hilarious. It should be under COMEDY. Or STUPID. It would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. Seriously? I want anyone associated with this movie tased, effective immediately. For everyone who is thinking of watching this "movie", let''s go over a few plot points. Oh, wait. There aren't any. There is literally no plot. I think Casper Van Dien was bored, and he decided to film something with some random someones, and miraculously, it somehow got on videotape. This movie is literally the worst movie of all time. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Do it, man. I dare you. But be prepared to gouge your eyes out. If you can sit through this without blowing a cow, you are very strong and courageous.@@@0 -In this swimming pool, this pond, there are water lilies and there are frogs. Frogs sit on water lilies. The frog and water lily have a parasitic relationship. Marie(Pauline Acquart) is a water lily, a synchronized swimming groupie with a crush on Floraine(Adele Haenel), a frog, the captain of her team. Floraine's teammates shun their leader because the preternaturally curvy and well-proportioned blonde conveys a loose persona that betrays the syncrhronized swimmer's mindset of conformity and discipline. But Floraine has a secret; the bombshell has a bombshell, which "Naissance des pieuvres" reveals to the audience, visually, before she confides in Marie.

Floraine has never gone, as they say, all the way, with a boy.

At a party, we see a double-image of the burgeoning sex bomb checking her make-up in a bathroom mirror. "Lolita" is a fata morgana. Marie gets to know Floraine's double while her imitation breaks the water lily's heart. While the frog goes through the motions of catching flies for appearance's sake, she gets chummy with the water lily when no one's looking. In the film's most startling scene, the water lily agrees to give the frog a hand in losing her virginity through the mechanical act of oral stimulation. Floraine wants boys to like her, but she doesn't like boys, seemingly, but it's more important to the frog that she's popular. When the water lily finally kisses the frog, the frog remains a frog. The frog can't transform into a water lily, or a princess, because the water lily lost the frog's respect. After their lips unlock, Floraine tells Marie, "See, it's easy," which is the frog's way of equating their kiss with the orgasm that her friend gave her as nothing more than a rite-of-passage without any strings attached. Floraine's beauty is a burden. She carries the weight of meeting boy's expectations. Florence uses Marie to have one final fling before her fata morgana subjugates its imitation into the closet.

The other water lily, the other frog, Marie's best friend Anne(Louise Blachere) and Floraine's frustrated boy-toy Francois(Warren Jacobs), just like any water lily and frog, have a parasitic relationship, too. While Floraine uses Marie for love, Francois uses Anne for sex. But that's life; that's the treachery of growing up, in which even a friend will turn on a good friend if the opportunity to move up the food chain presents itself. At a McDonalds, the water lily chastises the other water lily after bathing extensively in the frog's afterglow. Physical beauty is a currency. Marie gets to call the shots because Anne, although far from being ugly, is overweight and has an unflattering hairdo. Anne tries to fight back by using her breasts as ample retaliation(the magnifying glass from her Happy Meal incidentally comments on Marie's flat chest), but the tadpole(Marie thinks she's better than Anne, better than a water lily) points out that her breasts are a byproduct of fat.

Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other.

Later, in the final shot, "Naissance des pieuvres" suggests that Marie has a double, too, and this symbiosis among water lilies has the potential to turn parasitic in the near-future, if it not already has. Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other in a way that no boy could match.@@@1 -This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.@@@0 -It sounds as if it should be a biography of Claude Monet but it's actually a highly focused story of relationships between three adolescent girls on a French synchronized swimming team. There are no parents or teachers to speak of, no school, and boys are represented by one peripheral figure, the hunky Francois who enters the story determined from time to time and always leaves confused.

Pauline Aquart is the youngest of the three, only aspiring to join the team she so much admires. She's kind of odd looking. She's not yet out of her adolescent growth spurt and has long, bony limbs, big feet, and no derriere to speak of. She's prognathous and sports these plump pursed lips. After a while her appearance grows on you and from certain angles she can come to appear enthralling.

Adele Haenel is older -- more, well, more developed physically. What a glamorous figure she cuts in her swim suit, sauntering around, teasing the boys, swishing her long blond hair. But she's not what she seems. Or is she? I couldn't quite figure it out. The French are long on paradoxes and short on consistency. No wonder Francois is always sniffing after her.

There's not so much ambiguity in Louse Blachere's character. She's on the team too but she's dumpy and plain, and sensitive about it, and has an intense crush on Francois. Blachere is a good actress and adds to the ungainliness of the character through her performance.

The movie deals with the relationships between these three, meaning intrigues, deceptions, hidden feelings, and all the rest of what we associate with young girls who spend much time with one another. This is of course a tricky topic. It becomes trickier during the gradual development of a homoerotic relationship between Pauline and Adele. Not that you should expect this to be a soft porn movie. The only nudity we see is considerably less than a turn on, and what little sex there is under the covers, sometimes literally.

I don't think I want to get into the plot or into its analysis too much, partly because it's suggestive rather than expressed through action, partly because it's complex, and partly because I'm not sure I got it all.

Let me give an example. Okay. Adele is the girl the others envy. She's also quite distant and self satisfied. On top of that she is apparently schtupping every boy and man in sight if they can be of any use to her at all, from the handsome but dumb Francois to the bus driver she wants a favor from. She brags unashamedly about her expertise in fellatio. When Pauline approaches her about joining the swim team, Adele uses her as a lookout during assignations with the guys. A superior and self-indulgent narcissist, you know? But then the soi-disant slut takes the skinny Pauline under her wing and reveals to Pauline that she's still a virgin. Really? Yes, really. Pauline begins to draw closer to Adele and Adele finally confesses that she'd like to rid herself of her hymen and she would like Pauline to do it for her. Pauline, now drawn sexually to Adele, performs the task with subdued relish. NOW Adele would REALLY like to get it on with a man, preferably older and experienced. So she takes Pauline to a boite where she dances seductively with some guy until she follows Pauline to the powder room. The two girls stand there staring at one another, neither having overtly expressed a sexually tinged interest in the other. But Adele stands so close that Pauline slowly loosens her own reins, reaches up, and kisses Adele on the lips. Adele steps back, smiling, and says, "There now, that wasn't so bad, was it?", and then walks back into the club.

That's a pretty close description of whatever is going on between Pauline and Adele -- but what the hell IS going on? Initially, Adele treats Pauline like an irrelevant child, later like a close friend, finally like a potential lover -- and the minute Pauline responds, Adele walks off satisfied. Is she USING Pauline the way she seems to be using men? Does it satisfy Adele to know that she now has another person in involuntary servitude? I don't know.

I've slighted Louise Blachere as the third member of the trio, the plain and overripe wallflower whose expression always suggests dumbfoundedness but who at least is thoroughly heterosexual and the first of the three to rid herself of that noisome virginity, but I've only skipped her for considerations of space.

Should you see it? By all means. (Just compare it to the typical American movie about high school kids.) For men, some of whom have never penetrated the female mystique, this may give you some idea of what it looks like in medium shot.@@@1 -Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"@@@0 -In the areas where they overlap this fine movie is light years ahead of 2004s Innocence, which gave the impression of a rheumy eye and heavy breathing ogling young girls. Here the effect is much more realistic and really gets inside the heads of the three protagonists as they fumble their way through an adolescence riddled with pitfalls. The three principals, all unknown to me give very sure-footed performances, the kind, in fact, that may be so natural that it will be difficult for them to replicate this quality of acting in other films so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are not heard from again. It would be nice if this could get away from the Art Houses and into the Multiplexes where there's just an outside chance it might 'speak' to the bubblegum crowd it isn't aimed at.@@@1 -The volleyball genre is strangely overlooked by most screenwriters. Thankfully, highly acclaimed director Nelson McCormick has brought us the second best volleyball movie of all time (rated lower than Side Out and higher than, well, umm). However, don't let the cover of this movie decieve you. Kill Shot stars up and coming star Koji as a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Using such high-tech gadgets as a computer that is less powerful than my Gameboy, Koji is able to aid FBI agents in the tracking of a man who has not committed any obvious crime. While there are other actors in the movie, including brief cameos by Denise Richards, a gay negro, and a preposterously ugly and annoying girl, Koji carries this movie on his own. Any fan of movies such as The Matrix or Hackers will definitely love Kill Shot.@@@0 -I saw this little Belgian gem two days after seeing 'American Teen'. Make no mistake about it, adolescence is a roller coaster ride, be it American or European. 'Naissance des Pieuvres' (or as it is being called in the U.S. 'Water Lillies')is a tale of a young 15 year old girl (played by Pauline Acquart,who at times resembles a young Scarlett Johansson)acts the cool, withdrawn girl who wants to be on the school swim team, just to be close to another attractive girl (Adele Haenel). It's more than obvious that Marie is more than attracted to Floriane. Figuring among all of this is Marie's rather plump, unattractive friend, Anne, who just wants a boyfriend like any other girl her age. Along the way,we are shown the usual array of teen pastimes (broken hearts,shop lifting,alcohol and/or drug use,casual sex,etc.). This is a quiet little film that takes time to work it's way into your system (Michael Bay fans,take note:the pacing here is s-l-o-w,so steer clear),but if you have no problem with this, Water Lillies is a charmer. No rating here,but would pull down a hard "R", due to language,nudity,adult situations.@@@1 -It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back.@@@0 -Water Lilies is a well-made first film from France about young female sexuality and friendship. Sciamma works with specialized, slightly sanitized material that is as off-putting to some as it is alluring to others. The film focuses exclusively on three middle-class teenage girls in a tidy new Paris suburb. Their lives revolve around a big indoor swimming pool where two of the three are part of a synchronized water ballet team.

Such distractions as parents, siblings, work and school have been neatly excised from the equation. The central sensibility belongs to the attractively sullen but skinny Marie (Pauline Acquart), who is not on the team, but thinks she would like to be. Marie worships Floriane (Adèle Haenel), an alluring blonde and team standout whom the boys are after. This takes Marie away from her former best friend, also a member of the water ballet team, the somewhat plump Anne (Louise Blachère). Being less special Anne is more truly accessible to the boys. Floriane, like this film, promises a bit more then she truly offers. Marie has the more essential quality for a teenage girl: she suffers inwardly. Flroiane doesn't so much suffer as jump into situations and then bolt.

Marie is dazzled by the glamor of the water ballet as well as Floriane. Floriane takes advantage of this to make Marie first her slave and a cover for her assignations, then, lacking any other friends, her confidante. All the other girls think Floriane a slut, an illusion she encourages in the men and boys she teases, because it leads them on. She suffers the pretty girl's fate of being not a person but an object, and she can't resist the validation the boys give her by wanting to kiss her and bed her, but she doesn't really care about any of them and knows her involvements with them are a trap. Enlisting Marie to act as her pal so her (unseen) mother won't know she's going out to meet boys, she also gets Marie to rescue her from the boys later. It looked the opposite at first, but Floriane needs Marie as much as Marie thinks she needs her. Anne is left with her discomfort with her body and a desire to get laid that's earthier and more real than the other girls'.

Keeping all external context at bay, Sciamma can highlight subtle shifts in the delicate equation of the three girls' goals and interactions. On the other hand the film's water madness, which includes lots of showering and spitting as well as underwater swimming shots, makes it feel completely airless at times and some of its 95 minutes do not pass so quickly. Luckily the film has a sense of humor and lets the trio sometimes forget their ever-present goals and avoidances and just do silly, pointless girl things. It's the offbeat moments that give the film life; too bad in a way that there aren't more of them. But Sciamma has the courage of her obsessions and what remains as one walks out of the theater is the personalities and their dynamics. Along the way of course it is pleasant to watch the swimming and to gaze at the girls, who understandably love to gaze at themselves.

There's no great revelation or drama on the way, but things get a bit more interesting when it emerges that Marie doesn't just admire but truly desires Floriane and is jealous of her boyfriends--whom Floriane always stops before they go all the way. In a typical irony of this kind of plot, Floriane actually decides she wants to have her first real sex with Marie--but Marie is the one who holds off, because she knows it won't have the significance to Floriane that it will have to her. When it happens, it's a timid, mechanical affair. Meanwhile Anne has a huge crush on Francois (Warren Jacquin), a male swimmer, but of course he is after Floriane. Boys are not an element that's been subtracted and there always seem to be several dozen ready at poolside or on the dance floor, but they are just bodies and faces, available studs.@@@1 -Monika Mitchell's showbiz satire has some laughs and some premeditated violence. I wouldn't say blood-soaked; but there is insult and injury. Max Matteo(John Cassini)is a character actor that has a quirky adaptable presence on screen, but he has a terrible track record of being chosen for the parts he goes after. There is always a producer's nephew or seemingly trivial reason for his not being awarded the role he seeks. Well, the best thing to do is get rid of the competition...Max becomes obsessed with such thoughts. The rewarding career is just a swing, push and shot away. Other cast members: Rene Rivera, Molly Parker, Jennifer Beals, Frank Cassini and cameos by Eric Roberts and Sandra Oh. Well, that's show business...or is it?@@@0 -After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable.@@@1 -Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.

Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.

The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.

Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?

This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.@@@0 -These type of movies about young teenagers struggling with their own sexuality were something unique and daring and daring a couple of years ago but more and more movies like this got made over the past few years, making it hard for the movies to still stand out really.

Also this movie received little publicity, aside from the usual little film festivals that featured this little French movie, as well as the big festivals that are always fond of these type of little movies about everyday subjects that aren't being handled too often in movies. The film premiered at Cannes in 2007 and actually won some awards there as well.

The movie doesn't really stand out from others, since it actually features little new once you've already seen some similar movies such as this one but this however really doesn't mean that "Naissance des pieuvres" is a bad one to watch. The movie is certainly a good watch, that handles its subject well and tells its story steadily and therefore also effectively, in a typical somewhat slow French cinematic pace.

It's a coming of age movie, that focus on the life of mainly 3 totally different mid-teenagers. Sexuality is a big theme within the movie, which gets handled delicately and subtle. It makes the movie and its story overall a pretty realistic one, though perhaps a bit predictable, since the movie doesn't quite offer anything original enough within its genre.

This type of French movie will probably scare off a lot of people because of the reason that they probably expect it to be very arty, with deep layers and meanings to it. "Naissance des pieuvres" however is a very accessible movie for everyone and you really don't have to be into Euro-teen movies to appreciate this movie. It's a sweet and somewhat sensual kind of movie, due to its subject and visual approach.

The movie is also being made realistic by its actors, who don't had and have a lot of experience within the movie business but are authentic looking and feeling within their roles. The strong individual characters provide the movie with some nice themes and good moments.

A good movie on its subject.

7/10@@@1 -This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.

@@@0 -The significance of French title of this film, "La Naissance des Pieuvres" which literally means "The Birth of the Octopuses", is rather obscure, so it is perhaps not surprising that it has been marketed in English-speaking countries as "Water Lilies". The "lilies" of the English title are three teenage girls, Marie, Anne and Floriane, who are members of a synchronised swimming team based in the Paris suburbs, and the film is a "coming-of-age" drama about the development of their first sexual feelings.

One feature of the film, perhaps unusual for a film of this type, is that it concentrates exclusively on relationships between the young people themselves. We see nothing of their parents or their teachers, and very little of the adult world at all. The three girls are very different in appearance, and are portrayed as being very different in character. The shy, retiring Marie is slim and petite and appears to be the youngest of the three. Anne is something of a plain Jane, Floriane a glamorous blonde who is very popular with the boys. The three, together with a handsome male swimmer named Francois, are involved in what might be described as a love-quadrilateral.

Anne has fallen in love with Francois, but he is smitten with Floriane, who seems to return his affections, although he is by no means her only male admirer. Indeed, not all of Floriane's admirers are male, because Marie has a crush on her attractive friend. The film charts the way in which their friendship develops; at first it seems that Floriane is simply using Marie as a convenient excuse when she is in fact going out to meet boys; her parents presumably object to her dating boys, but have no objection to her going out with female friends. Later, however, we realise that, despite Floriane's image as the sexy, popular girl who is always the centre of male attention, she actually reciprocates Marie's feelings. The film reverses some conventional stereotypes about sexuality. Anne, with her short hair and rather chunky figure, looks typically "butch", yet she is the only one of the three main characters who is unambiguously heterosexual, whereas the more conventionally feminine Marie and the glamorous Floriane are lesbian, or at least bisexual.

Coming-of-age films are common enough, although most of them tend to avoid the controversial topic of teenage lesbianism. "Water Lilies", however, deals with its subject-matter in a sensitive way, with three very good performances from its three leading actresses, Pauline Acquart, Adele Haenel and Louise Blachere. The relationships between the characters, especially that between Marie and Floriane, are complex, and capable of a number of interpretations. (Is Floriane, for example, simply using Marie for sex, or does she genuinely have romantic feelings for her? Could Floriane's sluttish behaviour with Francois and the other boys be just a device to hide her lesbian feelings from the outside world? Or even to hide them from herself?) This was the first film made by its young director Celine Sciamma (only 27 at the time); on this basis she must be regarded as a highly promising newcomer. 7/10@@@1 -Mild SPOILERS contained herein. I'm spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it.

Jet Li's movies fall into one of two categories: Shaolin period movies and movies set in modern-day Hong Kong revolving around Triads or Triad like organizations. Each genre has its best and worst films. `Twin Warriors' is Jet Li's best Shaolin era flick while `The Evil Cult' is his worst. `Fist of Legend' while in the recent past is the best `modern era' Jet Li movie. `Black Mask' without a doubt is the worst.

Jet Li plays a self-exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability, but shortens his life span. In his `new life' in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. When his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage, Jet Li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. He dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian, as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex-comrades in arms.

The version I saw was dubbed, and horribly at that. Why does Jet Li capture and hold hostage his library co-worker if he's a pacifist? Is there a love story between them? Why does the police chief not care when he learns of the Black Mask's true identity? The plot is just plain BAD. Bad by way of the superhero cheesiness, bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed, bad in its character interactions, all topped off by a half-explained story I quickly lost interest in.

The action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. Lots of blood, gore (severed body parts aplenty), explosions, and Matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. Unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. If you want to see Jet Li playing a vigilante superhero in a Mission Impossible style movie `Black Mask' delivers. For the rest of us Jet Li fans it is a true disappointment. This is one of those movies where Jet Li never gets to be Jet Li: he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma, nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability.

Normally a Chinese knockoff of Ozzy Osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film, sadly `Black Mask' proved to be an exception to that rule. Indeed the antagonist of this movie, by the way he dresses, his long straight hair, and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged Ozzy Osbourne. However the villain isn't on-screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. I am assuming the likeness to Ozzy was intentional; in addition to the villain's look, he also ran a satanic looking hideout. So much more could have been made from the Ozzy Osbourne villain gimmick! If only the writer, director, or ANYONE had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film's arch villain!

`Black Mask' was the first Jet Li film released on video in the USA after Lethal Weapon 4, and I'm glad I stayed away from it until now. It may well have ruined my whole perception of Jet Li as a martial artist and actor. If you want to see Jet Li at his worst, rent `Black Mask' and `The Evil Cult' and make it a double feature or horror, both intentional and unintentional. Otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of Jet Li, and have plots that are semi-well thought out and plausible. 3/9 stars.@@@0 -Not everything is said in this excellent first feature from Céline Sciamma. The friendship, the "wanting to fit in", the first sexual feelings... All this and much more is sublimated through the underwater synchro swimming scenes.

All three girls in the movie try to find and express their personality in a very different way. It is a much less violent approach to the understanding of the teenage years compared to, say, "Thirteen", but a very worthwhile trip nonetheless.

A must see, and please leave all American cinematographic preconceptions at he door. The soundtrack is A+ by the way.

Bon cinéma !@@@1 -The movie was awful. The theater was dead with silence 'cause everyone was embarrassed to be in there watching such trash. I think someone gave Jet Li a lobotomy and made him perform a script with dialogue written by a five year old. The martial arts are 'ok', but when put next to the Jackie Chan movies and "The Matrix" you're better off seeing one of those.@@@0 -The original title means "The Birth of the Octopuses". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is "Water Lilies". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: "The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously." Thanks for your explanation.

The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.

Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of "water lilies".

Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that.

I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. – There is a parallel scene in another movie, "Kazetachi no gogo" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest.

Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this.

But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene.

Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of – I would like to quote Baudelaire, "Les amours enfantines".

Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in "The Little Devils" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) – a very underrated movie.@@@1 -Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.@@@0 -Also known as "Water Lilies" this film tells the story of two girls as they struggle their way into the world of love and sex. This story is told at a slow pace and that works very well. It gives plenty of time and space to get to know the different characters and to grow somewhat attached to them.

Using a small cast puts some extra pressure on the people playing as they all have some more screen time than normal but the people playing in this film handle that well. Everyone is completely believable. Visual setting is great, especially the underwater shots in the swimming pool add a nice effect.

Many films have been made about the same subject though and this one does not really stand out above any of them. It pulls some "standard" pressure methods out of the high hat and works on them. It isn't bad, not at all, but it surely isn't great either and I do feel it could have done better if it had taken some what less explored angles.

7 out of 10 synchronous swimmers@@@1 -Jet Li, is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. He has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. While he is big in Asia, he is almost unknown here in the US.

Black Mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him, but it fails horribly. First of all, it is dubbed. While it may have camp value (the dubbing isn't even close and it is flat in tone), it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. Secondly, the director in this movie, Daniel Lee, does a horrible job. He cuts scenes so fast, at times, you don't know what's going on. Other times, the camera shakes and wobbles. Fans see Jet Li's movies for the fantastic martial arts. However, the director edits the scenes so fast that you don't even know who's who half the time! Other times, a scene is left hanging (ie Li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep, while the badguys arm their guns, two seconds later, both Li and the love interest are already under the car!) Other scenes are so improbable, that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer CD roms? Just give him Throwing Stars!!!!). Li, needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise-a-scene. The added rap/techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. The plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. And are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize Simon, because he has a half mask on? Wouldn't the hair, lower jaw, or voice give it away?

If you want to see a Jet Li movie, try Iron Monkey or his classic Shaolin Temple. This disjointed mess is a complete waste of time.....2/10@@@0 -I saw it at Cinema MK2 Hautefeuille just one night after its first public projection in Paris. A very pretty film about three 15 years old teenagers, all of them just at about the same psychologically stages. Many of the scenes let us to come back to our adolescence age & our first feelings about sexual relations. it is possible to imagine that the director would like to reduce the first strong sensual feelings of the girls to lesbianism, but even in that case she doesn't corrupt the likelihood of the story. You can sometimes find the film a little slow but it is what creates this intimate atmosphere. I fund the young actresses of talent, special mention with Floriane and Marie, very convincing. There are many small details but this film also enabled me to discover what synchronized swimming is: impressing!@@@1 -"Hak Hap", or "Black Mask" (in english) was a disappointment. I was told that it was a sort of "Japanese version of the Matrix". Imagine my disappointment. The film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack didn't time well with the film. Another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. There was very little thought put into the English version of this film and it appeals only to the "senseless action" genre. Not a film I would want to see again.@@@0 -Three teenage girls in an incomplete triangular relation. The base of the triangle is barely there. At the apex is Marie, a serious, short and lean tomboy with a Belmondo-like facial structure. Her best friend is the physical and psychological opposite: coquette, chubby -- I dare say fat -- and desirous for her first kiss with a boy but not quite ready for her first sexual encounter. Because of her chubbiness, boys don't seem interested and it pains her.

The other leg of the apex is a beautiful "fille fatale" blonde vamp. She is deeply involved in the sport of synchronized swimming performing at competitive level. Marie sees her during a competition at the local public swimming pool. Marie insinuates herself into the life of the vamp using the desire to become a synchronized swimmer as an argument. The vamp has a reputation of being a whore, making out with any young male that orbits around her. Marie is not phased out by that reputation. Put a stress on reputation.

The first half is set up. We get to see a lot of synchronized swimming as we become familiar with the three girls. Eventually the narrative leaves synchronized swimming behind and concentrates on the topsy-turvy relations among the three. That's when unexpected things start to happen.

It is a trademark of French films to drop nuggets of wisdom on the viewer. This one is no exception. Here it is about ceilings and the dying. See the film to learn more.

The director says that the use of synchronized swimming is purposeful. That women-only sport is a metaphor for a girl's life: pretty and feminine on the surface while hard working and competitive underneath. A number of scenes drive this point: elegant moves and smiles for the public, legs kicking ungainly underwater. The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously.@@@1 -I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par.@@@0 -A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities.@@@1 -It's hard to believe an "action" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent.

It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.

The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow.@@@0 -"the day time ended" is an incredible picture. in some ways, it's better than "close encounters of the third kind." (i prefer cheesy independent flicks to big budget spectaculars.) the special effects ARE cheesy, but that's a big part of the fun. jim davis gives an excellent performance in this film. it's probably one of the best roles he ever had in a feature. the musical score is very good. the story DOESN'T make sense. BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT ALL THE MORE INTRIGUING. like many of the best works of art, "the day time ended" isn't afraid to be subtle and ambiguous. "the day time ended" may be a low budget indie film, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it with the "existential" European films of the fifties and sixties. (many of which were low budget independent productions themselves.)@@@1 -Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.

Too cartoonish and very disappointing.@@@0 -The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick.@@@1 -I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"

Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)

The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.@@@0 -I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.

The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.

The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.

A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.@@@1 -The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me. The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.

The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak. There just wasn't much to it. The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting. I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.

Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.

** out of *****@@@0 -If you love cult 70's Sci-fi the way I do, or if you like movies such as "Repo Man" or "Buckaroo Bonzai" than you're going to love this one. It's a stream of consciousness 70's Sci-fi spectacular, including a 22nd century junkyard and the Earth a million years from now. This movie is pure 70's. Put on Steve Miller's "Fly Like An Eagle" or Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" and you're ready to go!@@@1 -I'm a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.

Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes.@@@0 -Considering it was made on a low budget, THE DAY TIME ENDED manages to make the most of its budget with some surprisingly good special effects work.

The story involves a family who are about to move into their solar-powered home in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in southwestern California, only to find it trashed--by motorcycle vandals, they think. But their youngest daughter (Natasha Ryan) has begun to see mysterious things--a green pyramid, strange humanoid figures, etc. And only recently, the light from a trinary star explosion has caused extremely unusual auroras to show up in the desert skies. Thus the family, led by Jim Davis and Dorothy Malone, finds themselves face-to-face with strange alien forces who have put them in a time-and-space warp.

Mixing in elements of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, THE DAY TIME ENDED, despite its obvious flaws and uneven acting, remains interesting due to the superb special effects work of David Allen. The desert setting is very appropriate for this film's close encounters; and while the movie cannot really be compared with either Kubrick's or Spielberg's films, THE DAY TIME ENDED is much better than many other 2001/CLOSE ENCOUNTERS knock-offs. I give credit to director John 'Bud' Cardos, whose 1977 thriller KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS made for an interesting precursor to ARACHNOPHOBIA, for at least trying--and on that basis, I give THE DAY TIME ENDED a 7 out of 10.@@@1 -Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.

The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of "been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past".

The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.

By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.

So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.@@@0 -Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.

This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.

Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.

I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.

7/10@@@1 -"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention.@@@0 -Probably the most whimsical installment of the first season, 'Shore Leave' has its ups and downs; some parts drag on too long and others are unambitiously cut short, but one can't deny they threw in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink to make this an entertaining episode. Kirk and crew seem to have found the perfect planet for shore leave after an extended tour of duty has left everyone on board in need of rest, relaxation and so on. It appears for all intents and purposes to be an uninhabited Earth, with beautiful scenery and an ideal climate. The first indication that things might go just a little awry is when McCoy, leading an advance team, spots Alice (from Wonderland) following a large white rabbit wearing a vest. Kirk beams down and finds the others reporting similarly bizarre happenings and encounters. The one thing they all have in common is that each crew member was thinking about the person/place/thing they discovered right before they discovered it. This doesn't immediately sink in with Kirk or anyone else. More strangeness ensues, including sightings of Don Juan, a Siberian tiger, a WW2 fighter plane, etc; Kirk meets up with Ruth, a gorgeous old girlfriend (of course) and a bully from his Academy days, Finnegan. The chase/fight scene with Finnegan goes on too long but at the same time, McCoy is run through with a lance by a knight on horseback and apparently killed. Finally, an elderly man appears and explains what has been happening. The planet is a futuristic 'amusement park' where visitors have only to imagine something to have it appear. Nothing is permanent; McCoy isn't really dead. Once this is explained, Kirk decides to order shore leave for everyone after all. Despite the 'it was all a dream' sort of ending, 'Shore Leave' holds up as another first-rate episode of Star Trek's first season.@@@1 -I thought watching employment videos on corporate compliance was tedious. This movie went nowhere fast. What could have been a somewhat cheesy half hour twilight zone episode turned into a seemingly endless waste of film on people parking their cars, a picture of some dude's swimming pool (he really needs to answer his phone by the way) a dot matrix printer doing its job, and Heuy and Louey sitting in a yellow lighted control room repeating "T minus 10 and counting" as if something exciting is going to happen. It doesn't so don't get your hopes up. The best thing about this movie is to see James Best and Gerald McC, in something other than there famous TV personalities, and that is stretching to find anything good. And do NOT get me started on the music which was totally composed of a Tympani, some large marine mammals, and microphone feedback. This movie is as close as I have given a one yet, but it gets the 2 because I actually was able to finish this insomnia cure, and didn't have to leave in the middle. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.@@@0 -I watched SHORE LEAVE the other day. I've seen it so many times, and I never get tired of it. Strangely enough, every time I watch it lately, it takes me right back to the very first time I saw it. Including this time. Must be that sense of mystery and "What IS going on here?" about it.

Oddly enough, the one part of the story that ALWAYS felt awkward and uncomfortable for me, this time, actually had a HUGE effect on me-- Ruth. I think a lot of it was Gerald Fried's score. A real masterpiece, that! The romantic section was reused-- much more extensively-- in THIS SIDE OF PARADISE. But of course, it debuted here. I get the impression that, out of all the girls Kirk knew over the years, she may have been the "sweetest". When she said, "Do you have to go?", combined with the music, I could really feel the pain she must have felt at not being able to have him stay with her.

Someone commented online that Ruth looked older than he was, yet she wasn't supposed to have aged at all in 15 years. Which makes me think... MAYBE she was one of the teachers at the academy. Kirk had an affair with an older woman! (Perhaps he thought back to this in "MIRI" when he told Janice, "I never get involved with older women." Maybe he meant, "...anymore."

Reading ST reviews the other day, I see where someone compared WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF? with I, MUDD. But it seems SHORE LEAVE oughta be in there, too. What are all those "people" if not androids? And could "The Caretaker" be related to "The Old Ones" from the earlier episode? Whoever he is, he seems to be one of the RARE cases in ST where you have a race that is actually "superior" as opposed to merely thinking they are.

Yeoman Barrows seems to be filling in for Yeoman Rand. Considering how much attention Dr. McCoy showered on her, it's just one more frustrating example of a potentially good character who appears once and then never shows up again! Sheesh.

One thing missing from the last several I've watched that snuck back in here was, Spock smiling. He was! I saw him. I really prefer knowing there's 2 sides to him going on inside all the time, rather than this "submerged" business. When he said, "Enjoy yourself, sir." near the beginning, you could see it wasn't just his addressing his superior officer, but talking to his friend. And at the end, when he needlessly says, "Totally illogical!", I can't help but think he does it purely to provoke a reaction. He may not be smiling or laughing, but I think he likes seeing his fellow crew members around him happy.@@@1 -"The Brain Machine" will at least put your own brain into overdrive trying to figure out what it's all about. Four subjects of varying backgrounds and intelligence level have been selected for an experiment described by one of the researchers as a scientific study of man and environment. Since the only common denominator among them is the fact that they each have no known family should have been a tip off - none of them will be missed.

The whole affair is supervised by a mysterious creep known only as The General, but it seems he's taking his direction from a Senator who wishes to remain anonymous. Good call there on the Senator's part. There's also a shadowy guard that the camera constantly zooms in on, who later claims he doesn't take his direction from the General or 'The Project'. Too bad he wasn't more effective, he was overpowered rather easily before the whole thing went kablooey.

If nothing else, the film is a veritable treasure trove of 1970's technology featuring repeated shots of dial phones, room size computers and a teletype machine that won't quit. Perhaps that was the basis of the film's alternate title - "Time Warp"; nothing else would make any sense. As for myself, I'd like to consider a title suggested by the murdered Dr. Krisner's experiment titled 'Group Stress Project'. It applies to the film's actors and viewers alike.

Keep an eye out just above The General's head at poolside when he asks an agent for his weapon, a boom mic is visible above his head for a number of seconds.

You may want to catch this flick if you're a die hard Gerald McRaney fan, could he have ever been that young? James Best also appears in a somewhat uncharacteristic role as a cryptic reverend, but don't call him Father. For something a little more up his alley, try to get your hands on 1959's "The Killer Shrews". That one at least doesn't pretend to take itself so seriously.@@@0 -This one's a romp; many Trek fans don't rate this as high as the well-known all-time classic episodes because it lacks the deep meaning or undertone of those really great ones, but this one is so well executed for what it is, so successful as pure entertainment, it always makes my personal list of the top half dozen episodes, no matter what mood I'm in. Several well known future movies ("Westworld") and TV shows (the more bland "Fantasy Island") took their cue from the premise of this episode (then, of course, the TNG show revamped the concept with the holodeck technology). Beautifully filmed (especially evident in the restored version and on DVD) and directed, it takes place in the nice park-like setting of a planet which the Enterprise has just arrived to. It's odd that no animal life, even insects, seems to exist here (how are flowers pollinated, for example), but things turn really odd when members of the landing party start seeing people from their past (Kirk has a people-heavy past, it turns out), as well as figures from other well-known fantasy stories. Sulu even finds an old-style police revolver (adding to his collection of swords, no doubt).

By this point in the Trek series (halfway thru the first season), the main characters had pretty much solidified into the old friends we'd come to know over the many proceeding years. Here, we get to really see them relax, converse and work together to figure out this episode's puzzle: the strong narrative is a mystery again, of sorts, and the audience is along for the ride as Kirk & friends seek to unravel a very bizarre series of events which have a decidedly amusing flavor to them. It's almost whimsical, following up on the carefree style established up on the starship as Kirk was finally maneuvered into beaming down after showing definite signs of stress and fatigue (the Enterprise had, it's suggested, just completed a harrowing mission). Then Dr. McCoy is killed by a knight on horseback; yes, this is Dr. McCoy's final episode...just kidding. But, it's no joke to the rest of the landing party at this point in the story. McCoy really is dead for all intents and purposes and, like the best Trek episodes, the 2nd half of this adventure escalates to a more frantic, more desperate tempo of action and suspense. This is all signaled by Kirk's resolute response to Sulu, who voices his lack of understanding about any of these events just after McCoy's death - Kirk will get to the bottom of all this, come what may.

But, it doesn't get much easier for Kirk: what follows is probably the longest staged mano-a-mano fight for the series as Kirk tussles with his nemesis from his academy days, a struggle that seems to take place over half the planet. Yet, this is counterbalanced by scenes of extraordinary tenderness, with another of Kirk's past acquaintances. This episode runs the gamut of all human experience, rather fitting in light of what we learn about the actual purpose of this weird planet. It's gratifying that the script really does explain all of what's happened, as opposed to some nonsensical approach which permeates many other fantasy & sci-fi series with similar plot lines (unexplained appearances by persons who could not possibly be there). And there actually is a subtext to the story - that we humans need to 'work' off our tensions and fatigue in a particular fashion, or we just don't function in a 'normal' natural way. Also, note the appearance of the very cute Yeoman Barrows and the sudden absence of Yeoman Rand, who did not return until the first Trek movie in '79. I believe that after this episode, even more Trek fans couldn't wait for the next appearance of all their favorite characters. But I leave this episode with a final, perhaps tantalizing thought: if McCoy was killed (verified by Spock), how do we know it was our real McCoy who beamed back up to the ship? Perhaps this explains why this McCoy was still inspecting starships about a century later and getting along very well with Data.@@@1 -You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.

Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.

Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.@@@0 -Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.

Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.

The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.

7,5/10@@@1 -This film about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user "reluctantpopstar" gives a good description of it.

But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.

As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the "action". And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through this one.@@@0 -"Shore Leave" is mostly an average Star Trek adventure. Nothing wrong with the episode, though. I simply think that this is not the best representation of what the show had to offer to fans. It is lightweight entertaining, nothing more. However, I'm glad to see that a TV show of this type had enough good sense to take a break from serious intergalactic conflicts. In this episode, Kirk decides to grant his crew some time off, and a landing party is beamed down to a planet that looks like the perfect place for a vacation. As usual, the planet is not as peaceful as it appears to be. There are some action and tense moments, but most of the story is played for laughs. Good, but unexceptional.@@@1 -Let's see, here are the "highlights" of The Brain Machine: 15 establishing shots of a pool and a house; 15 establishing shots of a nondescript office building; 5 countdowns by a bland technician; 7 close-ups of a menacing guard; and a myriad of technical babble to show us this is a high-tech experiment.

Various posters have commented on the discrepancy between the copyright date of 1972 and the release date given on the DVD box of 1977. That's an easy one to explain. This dog simply sat on the shelf unreleased for five years, until someone dusted it off, thinking it fit in perfectly with the post-Watergate mood of distrust in government. After seeing The Brain Machine now, my only wonder is that it ever got released at all!@@@0 -Another episode from childhood that, as an adult, I look back on with a different perspective. This was one of my favorite childhood episodes, one that really cemented my adoration of this show. However, on viewing this episode after 20 years, I'd say it is definitely one of the lighter ones, played for laughs and amusement, instead of the dramatic and well-constructed story lines in previous episodes in this, their first and best season. Perhaps this episode was written for a little fan R&R too! As Mr. Spock would say, the story just isn't logical but there are some amusing lines like, of course, Mr. Spock's final one at the end--when he asks the Captain, McCoy et al whether they enjoyed their R&R and they answer in the affirmative, he raises an eyebrow and says "Fascinating..." in only the way Mr. Spock could do that. An interesting story line, of course, the idea of an amusement park being actually amusing (instead of the fake and often annoying "amusement" of Disneyland, for example), being able to have one's wishes actually come true. Really, a great idea but not that well executed. And coming from Theodore Sturgeon, another of the great SF short story writers they used in the first season, one wonders how much tinkering was done to the script that Sturgeon turned in.

Now, here is a little trivia I learned on this very site: In 1987, James Gunn established the Theodore Sturgeon Award for best short science fiction story. And I'll quote the rest from this site: In 1968 he {Sturgeon} wrote "The Joy Machine", a third script for the Star Trek TV series {Amok Time the other}, that was never shot. The main reason that it wasn't used in the series is that it contained expensive special effects sequences that would be too much for their budget. However, the script was adapted into a book by Sci-Fi writer James Gunn (Star Trek #80, The Original Series) and published by Pocket Books in 1996.

I'd sum this up to say this episode is still very enjoyable, especially if one doesn't think too much about it. Just laugh and enjoy it and next episode we can get back to the serious stuff of protecting the universe.@@@1 -I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.

And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".

I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.

Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.

@@@0 -This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.@@@1 -Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures… From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid!@@@0 -First of all, Riget is wonderful. Good comedy and mystery thriller at the same time. Nice combination of strange 'dogma' style of telling the story together with good music and great actors. But unfortunately there's no 'the end'. As for me it's unacceptable. I was thinking... how it will be possible to continue the story without Helmer and Drusse? ...and I have some idea. I think Lars should make RIGET III a little bit different. I'm sure that 3rd part without Helmer wouldn't be the same. So here's my suggestion. Mayble little bit stupid, maybe not. I know that Lars likes to experiment. So why not to make small experiment with Riget3? I think the only solution here is to create puppet-driven animation (like for example "team America" by Trey Parker) or even computer 3d animation. I know it's not the same as real actors, but in principle I believe it could work... only this way it's possible to make actors alive again. For Riget fans this shouldn't be so big difference - if the animation will be done in good way average 'watcher' will consider it normal just after first few shots of the movie. The most important thing now is the story. It's completely understandable that it's not possible to create Riget 3 with the actors nowadays. So why not to play with animation? And... look for the possibilities that it gives to you! Even marketing one! Great director finishes his trilogy after 10 years using puppet animation. Just dreams?

I hope to see Riget 3 someday... or even to see just the script. I'm curious how the story ends... and as I expect- everybody here do.

greets, slaj

ps: I'm not talking about the "kingdom hospital" by Stephen King ;-)@@@1 -This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it

was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,

not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards

was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)

we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and

judge it yourself.@@@0 -The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.

I'll give it an "A" for effort.@@@1 -Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!!

Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened.@@@0 -Bogmeister and others have pretty much nailed this. Shore Leave is really TOS' first attempt at lightweight sci-fi (which they would later perfect with the classic Trouble with Tribbles). It gave both the crew of the Enterprise and its TV viewers a needed respite from the universe threatening consequences of, for example, The Corbomite Manouever.

Looking for a place to chill out for a while, the Enterprise happens across a seemingly idyllic M Class planet, and sends an exploratory team down to take a closer look. Soon enough all kinds of absurdities begin to take place - some seemingly perilous - but it all seems a morass of human emotional extremities played out in a weird blend of fantastic mystery (McCoy has gone through the looking glass), psychological thriller (Kirk is stalked by an indefatigable bully from his past), and romantic comedy (no comment).

TOS was the least serialized of all of the series in the Trek franchise, so it is easy to forget how many episodes in the first season focused on heavy-handed, potentially calamitous drama. Unlike later series franchise writers, TOS' production team was not afraid to literally go where no TV series had gone before. And Shore Leave, despite its occasional problems, is an example. My only criticism of this episode is that the cast (particularly Shatner - ironic given his legendary sense of humor) didn't seem to know how to handle this new wrinkle on ST's themes. The last scene is possibly one of the worst scenes I can remember from the entire TOS run - both compositionally and in terms of acting.

'nuff said. My recommendation - see it while watching the entire first season as it was meant to be seen - it order.@@@1 -Oh, my gosh...I thought CBS primetime television shows were the

worst things Gerald McRaney appeared in...

Four people are experimented on by a crazed mind control

computer. That's it, don't rent it.

I saw this under one of its many titles- "Grey Matter," and it is

perhaps one of the worst films of recent memory. The other

reviews are right, it is awful. Never have so many establishing

shots appeared onscreen, NEVER. The cast is awful, the direction

is awful, and the script is awful. I cannot stress how awful this is.

Avoid it like you would smallpox.

This is rated (PG) for physical violence, some gun violence, mild

gore, some profanity, and some adult situations@@@0 -Okay, we've got extreme Verhoeven violence (Although not as extreme as other Verhoeven flicks), we've got plenty of sex and nudity, but something is missing...Oh, yes, it's missing the intelligence that Paul Verhoeven is known for in his sci-fi movies. I admire the way Verhoeven introduces the characters and how they have a sense of humor, but unlike most Verhoeven films, the movie itself doesn't have enough humor for it to fall into the comedy genre. The acting overall was above average compared to most slasher films.

What makes Hollow Man a good movie is not the story, not the cast or characters, but the amazing special effects work that would otherwise make a film like this impossible. The crew has truly made an invisible man, without the use of things like a floating hat suspended on piano wires and other practical effects (effects done on set). The most stunning effects scenes are not seen while Kevin Bacon is invisible, they are when Kevin Bacon is becoming invisible and visible.

The problem is that this invisible man story deserves to be more imaginitive. Here, it takes place at a lab for the most part. I would have enjoyed seeing the invisible Kevin Bacon robbing a bank and getting away with it, or let's say steal something from people's purses, or something like that. But what is shown is decent enough to make Hollow Man an entertaining movie. Grade: B@@@1 -Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.@@@0 -Contains spoilers

"Hollow Man" is probably the weakest movie that Paul Verhoeven, director of great movies like "Total Recall", "Starship Troopers" and "Robocop" has ever made.

That's probably not his fault. For some reason, Verhoeven got stuck with an utterly mediocre script, and he made the best of it.

The first part of this movie is rather good, with lots of cynical jokes, great special effects and even Skunk Anansie on the soundtrack. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat in the second part, were it degenerates into a standard slasher movie or maybe a very bad "Alien" clone. The ending is especially ridiculous , as Kevin Bacon keeps coming back to life after a number of incidents that should (in the logical sense of the word) have killed him. . And the entire thing is quite shallow, indeed: the subject of becoming invisible is never fully investigated.

But all in all, Verhoeven manages to stay well above average with this movie.

**1/2 out of **** stars@@@1 -Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...

Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!@@@0 -Paul Verhoeven (genius and master film maker) strikes back with the less than perfect, yet still fun in a "dirty old man type of way," Hollow Man. The first two acts are so good that the slasher final act disappoints. Yet I am giving a recommendation to this film for it's MIND BLOWING special effects (perhaps the best so far around) and two dandy performances by the leads. Verhoeven's moral questions are of course thought provoking, and although the film turned off many, this movie is pretty soft-core for old Verhoeven.

Two major flaws: Josh Brolin (aka walking ape-man) and the whole deal with the elevator. If there was an access ladder, why were they trapped down in the lab?

A fun horror film for a Saturday night.@@@1 -An absolutely wretched waste of film!! Nothing ever happens. No ghosts, hardly any train, no mystery, no interest. The constant and BRUTAL attempts at comedy are painful. Everything else is pathetic. The premise is idiotic: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of no-place, because their train was held up for less than 3 minutes. What? And the railroad leaves them no place to stay, in a heavy storm? I think not. Oh, they can walk 4 miles across the dead-black fields. umm, yeah. Sure. Or, they can force themselves on the railroad's hospitality, and stay at the 'haunted' train station. A station which proved to be nothing but DEADLY BORING, utterly without ghosts, interest, or plot.

So very terribly dull that this seems impossible.

This ought to be added to the LOST FILMS list !! aargh !!@@@0 -HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.

Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job.

---SPOILERS---

Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*

The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5.@@@1 -Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.

Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.@@@0 -this movie scared me so bad, i am easily scared though so its no big thing but this movie was scary and whoever wasnt scared by this movie, im surprised because everyone i know said it was scary, i hope everyone sees it, but dont see it with the lights off like i did....@@@1 -"A Damsel in Distress" is definitely not one of Fred Astaire's better musicals. But even Astaire's bad films always had some good moments.

In "Damsel," Astaire is Jerry Halliday, an American musical star who is in London on a personal appearance tour. He meets Lady Alice Marshmorton (19-year-old Joan Fontaine), a beautiful English heiress, who hops into the back of a cab he is taking to escape a mob of admirers.

Jerry believes that Alice is being forced into a marriage by her rich aunt. He tries to rescue her from her family's country manor house, but soon discovers that the house staff is laying bets on which suitor Lady Alice will marry. Keggs (Reginald Gardiner) the conniving butler, and Albert (Harry Watson), the bratty house boy, each take turns alternately helping and sabotaging Lady Alice's romance with Jerry to make sure they win the bet.

This musical has numerous problems. First, there is the plot, based on a novel by P.G. Wodehouse (who co-wrote the screenplay). The story is slow, painful, and nerve-grating. When Fred is not dancing, we have to endure endless annoying scenes of (a) Fred romancing Joan Fontaine or (b) Keggs and Albert conniving against them and each other.

The butler and the house boy are especially irritating. They are one-dimensional stock villain characters, the kind of guys you just want to punch in the mouth. You wish they would get off the screen and let Fred dance.

Astaire suffers in the absence of his usual partner, Ginger Rogers. Joan Fontaine is a lackluster leading lady in this film, and is miscast in a musical. She has little going for her, character-wise, other than her lovely face and beautiful smile.

George Burns and Gracie Allen are along for the ride, as Jerry's publicist and his ditzy secretary. The duo adds some sorely needed chemistry to the plot, and Gracie has some funny lines, but she is also very annoying at times.

The direction of the movie by George Stevens is not well done. At times, the cinematography is horrible and off-focus. There are a number of outdoor scenes set on extremely foggy streets, to try to convince the audience that we are in London, not Hollywood. (They must have used tons of dry ice in this movie.) On the plus side, the songs by George and Ira Gershwin are terrific, and have become classic song standards. And of course, the dancing in the movie is exceptional, thanks to Astaire and his choreographer, Hermes Pan.

But the musical and dance numbers are ill-used and ill-staged. At times, the cast seems to start singing and dancing because, well, it's time for them to start singing and dancing. The musical numbers seem randomly inserted into the meandering plot. (At one point, the butler steps outside the manor house and breaks into an operetta solo for no clear reason.) The numbers include:  "I'm Dancing and I Can't Be Bothered Now" -- Fred dances well on a foggy traffic-filled London street. He does some great "cane-twirling" with a rolled umbrella -- but the number ends too soon when Fred jumps on a passing double-decker bus. (In the Broadway musical, "Crazy For You," Harry Groener did a much better version of this number with a group of chorus girls.)

 "Put Me To The Test" -- Fred, George, and Gracie do a trio tap dance in an English cottage. George and Gracie match Fred step for step, but the number ends poorly with everyone kicking each other for no reason.

 "Stiff Upper Lip" (The Fun House Number) -- At an amusement park fun house, Fred, George, and Gracie have fun dancing on the revolving floor, rotating barrel, and with the fun house mirrors. It's the best number of the movie, but it gets a little repetitious at times.

 "Things Are Looking Up" -- Fred and Joan Fontaine do their one dance number together in the film, prancing around the back woods of the country manor estate. Fortunately, it's a very simple dance number because Joan is not a great dancer.

 "A Foggy Day in London Town" -- Fred wanders around the foggy manor estate at night, crooning about the foggy day when he first met Joan in London. At times, he looks as if he's not sure which way he's going in the fog -- much like the musical number itself.

 "Nice Work If You Can Get It" -- A great song that is misused in the movie. During a social event at the manor house, Fred gets drawn into a chorus of dour-faced singers who are haphazardly singing this song. Each time Fred joins in, the other singers look at him as if they wish he would leave. (Again, Harry Groener did a better dance number with this song in "Crazy For You.")  "Drum Dance Number" -- As Fred and Joan are eloping, Fred has to stop and do one final tap dance number while banging a group of drums. As usual, it's a great dance number. But there's absolutely no need for it, except to prolong the movie.

The most contrived moment in the film comes when Fred decides to leap off a high stone balcony at the country estate in order to prove his love for Joan Fontaine. As he leaps from the balcony, he finds a conveniently-placed trapeze -- that's right, a *trapeze* -- hanging from a nearby tree. Fred (or rather, a stuntman in Fred's clothes) grabs the trapeze and swings to the ground from it.

The movie is worth owning on DVD for the dance numbers alone, but you feel indebted to the guy who invented the Fast Forward button on your remote. The >>FF button allows you to skip through the other, boring scenes in the film to get to the dance numbers.@@@0 -Remember H.G. Wells' "The Invisible Man"? Well here's another movie like it, only more extreme. "Hollow Man" is like no one story about invisibility as a weapon of choice. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientific genius who goes out into the world of invisibility and making it useful for military purposes. At first making the serum was the easy part, making the person come back was not. Most of the first tries ended up unstable. Until one night, when he perfected the formula. And who else, but Caine would be the lab rat. The gorilla was the first and almost died, so when he came to, it was a close one. So when the did Caine, he decided to use it for fun. Then when he got tired of being not seen, the team tried their best to bring him back to the world of the flesh. However, the visibility formula happens to not work the way it should, and Caine would delve into madness. So he ends up being one mad invisible killer. It would be best to just get out of town instead of taking the lives of people that are close to you. I would care less about the ones who did you wrong. Great movie, plenty of fun. 3 out of 5 stars!@@@1 -This "movie" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in "Promise me this" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.

Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. "Promise me this" has very little "noise".

I liked "Life is a miracle". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. "Promise me this" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in "Life is a miracle". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are "noise", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.

Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for "Time of the gypsies" and "Black cat white cat") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. "Black cat white cat" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with "Promise me this". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.

"Promise me this" is billed as a "comedy", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as "Black cat white cat", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that "Black cat white cat" was written by Gordan Mihic.

However, I know some people, who liked "Promise me this", they find it very positive movie.@@@0 -Hollow Man starts as brilliant but flawed scientist Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) finally works out how to make things visible again after having been turned invisible by his own serum. They test the serum on an already invisible Gorilla & it works perfectly, Caine & his team of assistant's celebrate but while he should report the breakthrough to his military backers Caine wants to be the first invisible human. He manages to persuade his team to help him & the procedure works well & Caine becomes invisible, however when they try to bring him back the serum fails & he remain invisible. The team desperately search for an antidote but nothing works, Caine slowly starts to lose his grip on reality as he realises what power he has but is unable to use it being trapped in a laboratory. But then again he's invisible right, he can do anything he wants...

Directed by Paul Verhoeven I rather liked Hollow Man. You know it's just after Christmas, I saw this a few hours ago on late night/early morning cable TV & worst of all I feel sick, not because of the film but because of the chocolates & fizzy pop I've had over the past week so I'll keep this one brief. The script by Andrew W. Marlowe has a decent pace about but it does drag a little during the middle & has a good central premise, it takes he basic idea that being invisible will make you insane just like in the original The Invisible Man (1933) film which Hollow Man obviously owes a fair bit. It manages to have a petty successful blend of horror, sci-fi & action & provide good entertainment value for 110 odd minutes. I thought the character's were OK, I thought some of the ideas in the film were good although I think it's generally known that Verhoeven doesn't deal in subtlety, the first thing he has the invisible Caine do is sexually molest one of his team & then when he gets into the outside world he has Caine rape a woman with the justification 'who's going to know' that Caine says to himself. Then of course there's the gore, he shows a rat being torn apart & that's just the opening scene after the credits, to be fair to him the violence is a bit more sparse this time around but still has a quite nasty & sadistic tone about it. Having said that I love horror/gore/exploitation films so Hollow Man delivers for me, it's just that it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Director Verhoeven does a great job, or should that be the special effects boys make him look good. The special effects in Hollow Man really are spectacular & more-or-less flawless, their brilliant & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There's some good horror & action set-pieces here as well even if the climatic fight is a little over-the-top. I love the effect where Kevin Bacon disappears one layer at a time complete with veins, organs & bones on full show or when the reverse happens with the Gorilla. There's a few gory moments including a rat being eaten, someone is impaled on a spike & someone has their head busted open with blood splattering results.

With a staggering budget of about $95,000,000 Hollow Man is technically faultless, I can imagine the interviews on the DVD where some special effects boffin says they mapped Bacon's entire body out right down to he last vein which they actually did because you know everyone watching would notice if one of his veins were missing or in the wrong position wouldn't they? The acting was OK, Bacon made for a good mad scientist anti-hero type guy.

Hollow Man is one of hose big budget Hollwood extravaganzas where the effects & action take center stage over any sort of meaningful story or character's but to be brutally honest sometimes we all like that in a film, well I know I do. Good solid big budget entertainment with a slightly nastier & darker streak than the usual Hollywood product, definitely worth a watch.@@@1 -After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great.@@@0 -A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.

This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie.@@@1 -I did not expect a lot from this movie, after the terrible "Life is a Miracle". It turns out that this movie is ten times worse than "Life ...". I have impression that director/writer is just joking with the audience: " let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain". Dialogues are empty, ... scenario is minimalistic. In few moments, photography is really nice. Few sarcastic lines are semi-funny, but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this "comedy". I've laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. If you can lift yourself above this director's fiasco, ... you will find good acting of few legends (Miki Manojlovic, Aleksandar Bercek), and very good performance of Emir's son Stribor Kusturica.

In short: too bad for such a great director ! Emir Kusturica is still young and should be making top-rated movies. Instead, he chooses to do this low-budget just-for-my-private theater movie, with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans.@@@0 -It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*!@@@1 -Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as "Him" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-"Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience.@@@0 -Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.

These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.

The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital.@@@1 -Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:

Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.

Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.

Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.

Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?

Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.

1/10

@@@0 -EARTH (2009) ***1/2 Big screen adaptation of the BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" offers quite a majestic sampling of nature in all its beauty with some truly jaw-dropping moments of "how the hell did they get this footage?!" while taking in the awesome scenics of animals in their natural habitats and environmental message of the circle of life can be cruel (witness a Great White Shark gulping down a walrus seal as a quick meal!) and adorable (the various babies and their 'rents). The basso profundo tones of narrator James Earl Jones solidifies its 'God's eye views' and profundity. Culled from literally hundreds of hours of footage, the only gripe comes from the fact this should have been in the IMAX format and could've even gone longer! Oh, well, there's always the next time (since Disney Studios has produced this count on a series of more to come). Dirs: Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield.@@@1 -A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.

I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless "10 Items or Less" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Um Astro em Minha Vida" ("A Star in My Life")@@@0 -Greetings again from the darkness. Stunning photography highlights this Disney documentary and provides a glimpse into some of the harshness of animals that live in the wilderness. For anyone over 40, Disney and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom provided much of our insight into wild animals since our childhood ... back when there was no channel dedicated to National Geographic or Nature or Animal Planet.

What always fascinates is just how difficult the circumstances are for many of these majestic creatures. Watching the elephants trudge for days, nearly delirious from lack of water, is oh so painful. But their nighttime battle against the lions is thrilling.

Some of the underwater shots are breathless. The mama and baby humpbacks are beautiful and watching the great white shark attack its prey is every bit as chilling as "Jaws". The most amazing scenery for me was the breathtaking views of the Himalayas. I had never seen such detail of the vastness of the range.

Don't think most young kids today will be too excited by this one, but it surely is one of the most beautifully photographed documentaries I have ever seen.@@@1 -This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic…with the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project.@@@0 -Why on earth should you explore the mesmerizing nature documentary "Earth"? How much time do you have on earth so I can explain this to you? OK, I will not elongate my review exploration on "Earth" to infinity, but I must stand my ground on why this is a "must see". The documentary takes a nature round trip on the migration paths on three animal families: a female polar bear and her cubs with the real life subplot of the father bear daring it out to hunt for food in his isolated path, a mama of a whale with her baby whale taking a whale of a migration tour for prey, and an elephant mama with her small (maybe not so small, they are elephants) offspring migrating in Africa. Directors Alastair Forthegill & Mark Linfield did an "out of this earth" job in also capturing the survival skills of many other animal species besides the magnetic shots of our three animal family protagonists. The cinematographically skilled team of Richard Brooks Burton, Mike Holding, Adam Ravetch, and Andrew Shillabeer were animales in camera shooting the wondrous nature sites and animal instinctive behaviors; not to mention, the slo-mo animal prey shots were u n b e l i e a v a b l e. "Earth" is also a lesson learner on the global warming effect on the animals; the papa polar bear in the doc is the poster animal boy on that consequence. So fellow earthlings, it is time to take the documentary voyage to visit "Earth" today! **** Good@@@1 -While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":

Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!

Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?

Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.

Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.

Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.

Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.

Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?

Writer: Why not?

Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.

Writer: Of course.

Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.

Writer: Sure thing!

Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?

Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!

I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"@@@0 -In 2006, the AMPAS awarded one of the most innovative documentaries depicting wildlife in the coldest place on Earth, that film was March of the Penguins narrated by Academy Award Winning Actor Morgan Freeman.

Walt Disney Studios has had a monopoly on the animated circuit for decades now. They've taken their stabs at live action film making and it's been hit and miss all across the board. Disney then created a sub-division called Disneynature and release its first feature film titled Earth. This is absolutely one of the most touching and informative documentaries I've seen in quite sometime.

Narrated by the great James Earl Jones, Earth doesn't offer anything new to anyone who has watched the Discovery Channel in the past five years or follows the Global Warming crisis very closely. Earth touches very deeply on the issue and takes a very liberal approach on the subject matter.

It enables an emotional connection to nature that I haven't experienced before. It also shows not only the beauty and mystifying parts of our gorgeous planet, but the grunt and disturbing aspects that it often entails. It's one thing to watch "Mufasa" fall from a cliff in to a stampede or Bambi's mother be shot by a hunter in the middle of the woods. It's all good because at the end of the film we know it is, just that, a film. This shows penguins, polar bears, elephants, all types of families, from all walks of life, living and dying in their natural habitats. These real things make a real movie experience.

Though a bit heavy-weight on the graphic nature of the film (which many people will disagree), Earth is a touching experience. There is stunning cinematography work here by a great camera team and an amazing score by George Fenton. In comparison to March of the Penguins or Grizzly Man, it doesn't really hold any measure but it stands great on its own. At the end of the day, you grow an appreciation of our planet and a bit of sadness as many of us will probably never get to visit these places we'll witness in the film. We live here yet it's like we never get to explore the planet for one reason or another. Earth is beautiful.

***/****@@@1 -I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.

Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.

I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.

If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.@@@0 -First of all, the release date is 2009, not 2007 for this feature length nature documentary film. It should be more properly referred to as: "Earth, 2009". Secondly, allow me to address the complaints of some reviewers who have seen the "Planet Earth" TV series of 2006.

I have not seen this TV series, but learned here, that this film is the full length version of this 2006 TV series. I judge any film, on it's own merits, not by it's source. I judge the results, on their own, and the results of "Earth, 2009" are indeed excellent. I dismiss this trivial complaint of some reviewers: that it's simply an expanded version of the 2006 TV series "Planet Earth". So what? It doesn't really matter.

As a film buff and one who has viewed dozens of nature documentaries in my lifetime, I was astonished and highly impressed by "Earth, 2009". This is the debut film from the new "DisneyNature" division of Disney and follows in the footsteps of Walt Disney's pioneering and Academy Award winning nature documentary films of the 1950's and 1960's.

Cinematography, film editing, music score, sound and narration are all excellent. There have been a few other nature documentaries that also excelled in these categories. What really sets "Earth, 2009" apart is its' scope. It literally covers the entire planet, covering all seven continents.

After my first viewing, it was obvious this documentary film required a massive effort and amount of time and talent to create.

Three production companies were required to make this amazing documentary film.

"Earth, 2009" convincingly tells the stories of four species on their great migrations as it spans one year through the seasons beginning in January and ending in December, from the North Pole to the South Pole.

Two special new high-tech cameras were used for this film: one camera has a 360 degree computer controlled motorized rotating lens and the other is a HD camera set to an amazing 1,000 frames per second. This filming technique really added drama and beauty to some of the scenes of "Earth, 2009" especially the cheetah chase and great white sharks leaping out of the water to catch sea lions and an aerial view going over the edge of the world's highest waterfall. There are many stunningly beautiful shots in this documentary.

Via cinematography, music score and narration, there is drama, sadness, humor and great beauty in this documentary. With a great music score performed by the world renowned Berliner Philharmoniker, excellent creative and technical cinematography and James Earl Jones narration, I consider "Earth, 2009" as the greatest nature feature length documentary film ever made.

Five years of hard work, patience, talent and dedication really paid off very well here. This film should be required viewing in all schools throughout the world. I predict an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, among other awards. Truly, an amazing, astonishing, exhilarating and magnificent documentary film.

Very Highly Recommended@@@1 -After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.

This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. "10 Items" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned "Lost In..." seems to stretch out over a few long days.

I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.@@@0 -I saw the German version of the movie in German television and I was really amazed. I generally like to see documentaries, but I can't remember to have seen one that is better than 'Earth'. I knew some of the scenes from Youtube videos that I found by random browsing. I also remember to have seen parts of the film on multimedia stores, running on the displayed high definition TVs. After seeing the movie it's obvious to me why the footage is so popular among Youtube users and multimedia retail managers: It's just so awesome and spectacular that you can't help but stare on the screen, no matter if you're generally interested in nature documentaries or not.

Without hesitating a 10 out of 10. For sure, there are more thrilling movies, but in regard of documentaries, 'Earth' is definitely one of the best of it's genre.@@@1 -I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....

Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?

Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.

One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life.

Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating.

Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.@@@0 -EARTH is a must see for children and adults. My son had great fun watching all these funny birds and ice bears. We can learn a lot from this movie and we should be proud on our great treasure on earth. There are some animals in danger to disappear. Exactly that problem should prevent all the authorities of our planet.

This documentary offers many exceptional pictures that I have never seen before. Then it is well accompanied by a heavenly music. The director did a great job here that gets high respect. Nothing can stop me and my family to give EARTH the highest rate. I hope so much that the stuff will create a sequel.@@@1 -Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... "Poetry", "hope"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........@@@0 -I saw this movie with my family and it was great! This film is more than just a documentary (that offers not more than cold facts) with long mono/-duologue's and lots of charts...The complete "power" of this movie comes from the impressive pictures being filmed under water, in the air or the Arctic.With watching this movie you can learn more about our planet than with just reading a book, it shows that WE are embedded in the circular flow of life. This movie is not only for "environmental fanatics" although people that want to look a good movie with a message should watch it. This movie taught me that we are not only living on the earth...we live with and through the earth and all plants and animals grow and die with us.@@@1 -While on a vacation at the beach, red-haired brothers Michael McGreevey and Billy Mumy (as Arthur and Petey Loomis) find a seal. The lads christen their critter "Sammy", and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. When it's time to go home, the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. Young Mr. McGreevey decides they can't take "Sammy" back to "Disneyland"… er, "Gatesville" - but, young Mr. Mumy packs him anyway. At home, they try to hide "the Way-out Seal" from adults, and, of course… hijacks ensue!

**** Sammy - The Way-out Seal, pt 1 (10/28/62) Norman Tokar ~ Michael McGreevey, Bill Mumy, Robert Culp@@@0 -i almost did not go see this movie because i remember march of the penguin was not that much exciting. I went mainly because Disney promised to plant a tree if i go see it on the opening weekend, but after i did go see it, it was simply amazing; the fact that the photographers can capture impossible images are simply worth your money. You also get to see different habitats, different vegetation, animals, and natural phenomenons that will not only shock you - simply because you would never expect nature to be so magical and dynamic - but also touch your souls and raise the question of humanity versus the world, of how our lives have deviated from nature to such a degree that we take for granted of the natural beauty and miracles that are quintessential to our biosphere. You don't have to be an earth lover or a tree-hugging environmentalist to appreciate the mere awesomeness of this documentary. You simply have to be a curious soul who questions the value and miracle of living. Enjoy!@@@1 -I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)

{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}@@@0 -This is a run-of-the-mill nature porn movie. By porn, I don't mean sex. I mean gratuitous images of (for example) thousands of birds together, or hundreds of walruses, or a giant waterfall or iceberg. Several of the shots in the film seem to exist solely to make their way into the trailer, to get people into theatres to see it for all of ten seconds before it disappears never to be seen again for the rest of the film.

There is almost no plot in this film. Told to expect a story of three animal families, "better than March of the Penguins", the movie simply doesn't deliver. The blame rests in three key areas: (1) the writers who gave James Earl Jones some of the worst lines to narrate in nature film history, (2) the music team who over-dramatized everything to tell you what you should be feeling, even when the film fails to motivate, and lastly but most importantly (3) the editors who had the story jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason, no continuity, no flow, sucking the life out of the entire film -- a film about life. When we got to the whales halfway through the film, I sunk back in my seat with dread, hoping against hope that the film was more than halfway through, and that I'd be able to survive the long endurance test along with the animals on screen.

There was also almost no science in the film at all. They attributed hot and cold (all of it, not just the seasons) solely to the Earth's tilt, ignoring the fact that we'd have even greater extremes from location to location if there was no tilt because the poles would never warm. And it would be worst if we had no rotation (relative to revolution) like Mercury, because half the planet would bake and the other half would freeze. Then near the end they used the phrase "humans and animals", as if humans are not animals, somehow exempt from the laws of nature. So much for science.

I must credit the camera work, however, and again that is why I call this nature porn. Everything from super-slow-motion to what appears to be a finely-tuned mechanically-controlled time-lapse photography, was put to use to provide some (and I caution, only "some") stunning moments that do raise the bar compared to other nature films. That said, I am not convinced that it was all nature on the screen. Some of the shots showing the great watering hole in Africa, as it changed from season to season seemed like CGI to me. A director might have expected such suspicion and built in other shots to demonstrate that it's all natural, but they didn't do that.

For a film about Earth, I had expected a lot more of Earth to be shown. What we saw was pristine. We had to take the narrator's word for it that some species are at risk due to climate changes. They didn't show us evidence of it. They didn't show us Alberta's poisonous tailing ponds visible from space. They didn't show us the great Pacific trash whorl. They didn't show us a nighttime picture of human light pollution around the planet. These are as much Earth as anything else. Why cover it up for a feel-good whitewash?

My last criticism of the content is of predation. Any time a predator was shown on the screen actually hunting prey, the music turned almost into that Mt Doom scene from Lord of the Rings, with the predator portrayed as some kind of Sauron ultimate-evil character. But predators aren't evil. They perform a necessary service, ensuring that the best members of the prey species survive. We are predators ourselves. Any time the predator caught the prey, we immediately cut away to something else, to sort of pretend that death and eating don't really happen. The final insult was the "dad" polar bear being left to die after he dared to try to eat. "Bad bear! Bad!", you can almost hear them say.

On to the presentation itself. My theatre may be in part to blame for this, but maybe not. I had expected to see something with greater clarity than I could see on my own HDTV LCD at home. But the picture was blurry, and was presented in the same 16:9 ratio I could get at home, instead of the wider ratio many films come in these days. And during one action-packed scene near the end, the film (I can't imagine this happening digitally, from how it looked) was damaged, and we lost several of the colors, eventually blacking out completely. That repeated about three times.

If they actually do plant a tree on my behalf, it will have been worth it. But how will I know?@@@1 -This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.@@@0 -More eeriness and dark secrets released in the final parts of Lars Von Trier's fantastic horror satire The Kingdom... Much more is revealed and the ending just leaves you begging for more. Plus a great performance from Udo Kier in a more substantial role...@@@1 -This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.

It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?@@@0 -In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film "Earth". Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.

The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.

Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.

The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.

One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show "Kung Fu" during the early Seventies.

An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!

Three stars.@@@1 -[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]

This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".

Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.

Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".

Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).

What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?@@@0 -This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH".@@@1 -I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.

I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 "star gate" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized "R2-D2".

It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.

The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.

When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.

Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.

On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.

There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.

While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, "help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!" instead of just shrieking.

The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.

Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.

Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.

Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.

In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.@@@0 -The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film.@@@1 -The original Lensman series of novels is a classic of the genre. It's pure adventure SF with some substance (here and there) and I've always wondered why Hollywood hasn't filmed it verbatim because it's just the kind of thing they love: massive explosions, super-weapons, uber-heroics, hero gets the girl, aliens (great CGI potential), good versus evil in the purest form, etc etc. Instead (and bear in mind I'm a Japan-o-phile and anime lover) we get this horrendous kiddies movie that rips the guts out of the story, mixes in Star-Wars (ironic as the latter ripped off the books occasionally) pastiches and dumbs the whole thing down to 'Thundercats' level. To see Kimball Kinnison, the epitome of the Galactic Patrol officer and second stage Lensman portrayed as a small boy is pitiful (etc). I just can't understand why the makers did this because they obviously had the rights to the story and could have made far more money (FAR!) by telling straight. It makes no sense.@@@0 -You have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really great, it is a 10 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so poor, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are an excellent way to wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth" mainly made of long monologues, painfully and with "truths" not always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already.

The best thing you can do on earth is not miss Earth.@@@1 -Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it!

The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.

While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.

Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.

They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God!@@@0 -Rather annoying that reviewers keep comparing this to Planet Earth... Of *course* Planet Earth is better - it has much much more of the same. Earth is like an extended trailer for the Planet Earth series, and as such, is inevitably inferior and simplified. But that is not comparing like with like.

As a feature-length documentary (or actually as a feature-length anything), it surpasses pretty much anything you will see in your entire life (unless you choose to traverse the Earth in helicopters with long-range cameras for years on end, and wait for months in the most extreme environments to catch a glimpse of the most extraordinary beings on earth, which - lets face it - is unlikely).

On the narration: yes everyone in the UK - very much including me - adores David Attenborough, and there's little excuse for him not to be narrating here, but that hardly deserves knocking down a star or three. He wasn't a presenter on Planet Earth, just a narrator, and I'm sure he's modest and gracious enough to realise that anything that gets more viewers in is a Good Thing.

Anyone who sees this will be overwhelmed by its awe, majesty and glory. All reviewers agree on that. Those who love it (ie. everyone) will/should go on to see an buy Planet Earth. So three cheers for its cinematic release, and a big boooo for anyone cheap enough to buy this on DVD rather than the Planet Earth box-set. But as works of art they're not in competition here people.

The Earth is big enough for both.@@@1 -The movie has a good start portraying an interesting and strong Shannon Lee and introduces two very simpathetic side characters through the first half. But later something happens and all the sudden Shannon turns into this straight faced, second hand bad girl and the movie gets lost in it's own context. The second half lacks any kind of charisma and is full of clichés, bad acting, a horrible plot and even worse stunt coordination. Not to mention the horrible actors they chose for the chechen mafia gang.

"Game of Death 2" was bad and clownified Bruce, but his daughter tops it making an even bigger embarrassment of herself than the double who played Bruce Lee back then. I truly believe that she can do much better than this and I hope she participates in a better production next time.

If you are a real hard core action fan and don't care about quality go ahead and see this movie. I was personally looking forward to it but just got terribly disappointed.@@@0 -Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.

This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.

In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful!@@@1 -I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.

That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.

Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off.@@@0 -I have to say that sometimes "looks" are all that matters, just like Jeremy Clarkson from BBC has pointed out (not about our earth though, but he is right anyway).

And when it comes to looks, this movie is such an unbelievably stunning beauty you will absolutely love what your eyes are about to see.

And then there's the personality of the movie as well, interesting, with a captivating narrator voice and narrator stories that will touch your soul as you watch those superbly filmed images.

The movie probably won't affect your lifestyle, ruining these beauties, but it will certainly remember you how precious our earth we live on truly is.

This movie deserves it's 10 stars as it is one of the few stylistic earth documentaries i truly enjoyed.@@@1 -One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give "CC" a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.

And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's "Robot Chicken." I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom "The Class." WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of "Creatures"....let's just say I'd take the "Class." Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill.@@@0 -I've heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, "Planet Earth," narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)' – a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage – on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.

Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the "human side" of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.

'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.

Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale – tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year – the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for "Planet Earth." Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007.@@@1 -The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.

Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.

The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on.@@@0 -There is some spectacular, heart stoppingly beautiful photography here of a range of scenery and animals, from arctic to tropical and everything in between. The camera techniques are varied and spot on from close ups to aerial work. Editing is tremendous and the commentary is spot on too, with just the right tone and some dramatic and telling facts about our world. Where the film falls down a bit is in trying to cover and integrate four themes - seasonal patterns, climate change, individual animal stories and hunter/ hunted interactions across multiple environments. Eventually it all gets a bit bitty and disjointed. Overall, well worth seeing especially given the issues covered but don't expect Oscar material.@@@1 -Although this film was made before Dogme emerged as the predominant method of filmmaking, and before digital triumphed over -- strike that. You get the point. This 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipated those developments. Corin Nemec is just outstanding as the ne'er do well author and narrator. The pace is slow, but elegantly so, because the cinematography is so beautiful. Record it the next time its on T.V., because I guarantee you'll never see a better nostalgia rip-off made-for- T.V. movie. Direct-to-video never felt so good!@@@0 -I loved the way EARTH is made. Its photography is unbelievable, editing it must have been an interesting challenge and Patrick Stewart's voice over is PERFECT. In addition its music and sound editing make watching EARTH a profound experience you don't want to miss. You really are on a journey to where you would probably never-ever end up by yourself.

And although, at first, I was quite surprised by the laughter of the audience as we see animals in their daily fight for survival, I could not help laughing myself sometimes. Nature simply seems too impressive to comprehend.

But, rather than the need to laugh, I left the cinema with a profound question:"Howcome 200 years of industrial revolution can destroy natural systems that have been here for thousands and thousands of years?"

With this question in mind, you'll understand how I felt somewhat bitter and powerless after seeing EARTH. I felt the immediate need to change the world, to help all these animals in their struggle, to undo the changes we have gone through the last centuries and to stop the global heating at once (all that not being a NGO activist at all!)...

So I immediately visited the website mentioned at the end of the film to see what I could do to save our -still- fantastic planet (and the polar bear) from its depressing fate... (www.loveearth.com)

I was a little disappointed to find no direct answers to my questions there. Yet it was very interesting to find out more about the film and the struggle its crew went through.

I hope that cutting on my energy-use will do. I don't know how else to shorten the distance polar bears have to swim to reach land before they drown or attack animals they cannot beat in their exhausted state...

An inspiring film it is, but I didn't leave the cinema feeling very happy.@@@1 -may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, "bad" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood "southern" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience.@@@0 -Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. ***@@@1 -Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this.@@@0 -This was playing at our theater in Amsterdam and the film we wanted to see was sold-out so we went to this, not knowing anything about it other than it was a documentary about the planet. We were very happy at our misfortune as this was a very powerful film about life and the delicate balance we all share with the rest of the inhabitants of Earth. This film has some of the most breathtaking photography I have ever seen in a film and took me places from deserts to oceans to rain forests and displayed things I have never seen in a film, TV or book! "Earth" is a film that every student should see before they become jaded. I will encourage my niece to see this film since she will be inheriting the planet we leave her. This is also a film to see on a theater screen or a very big television since the photography is so powerful and exotic.@@@1 -While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from "Kicking and Screaming" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic "The Indian in the Cupboard" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: "Take me outside, earth grasper." From "Grey Owl": "If you don't like it, you don't have to watch."@@@0 -This is simply the most astonishing movie you will ever see. I thought it was just another documentary, but it really is something else. It doesn't try to teach you anything, it shows you how life works in nature.

I won't talk about the quality of the pictures, because you obviously know from other comments it is unmatched.

Earth is funny, tense and sad. It can make you laugh, it can make you cry. Sometimes both at the same time. This is the first movie that made me cry, not because you feel sorry for the animals, but because you come to realise how fragile our planet is and what treasure we were blessed with, yet we don't appreciate it one bit.

This movie should be shown obligatory in schools. It is the most wonderful film you will ever see, so go and see it. Who knows, maybe it is the last time we might see our planet like this...

10/10, but I would easily rate it more if it were possible.@@@1 -!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!

You`d think a story involving Archie Grey Owl - An Englishman posing as a red indian - would have a massive amount of humour involved . In fact I`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . However Richard Attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making GREY OWL a serious drama . Worse , he`s made an extremely dire film too . Pierce Brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between Grey Owl and Pony ( Played by the equally wooden Annie Gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . But to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray Archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he`s a native American . The producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of Archie being an Englishman - That`s why I wrote " Possible spoiler " it`s not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is English , but it`s obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there`s absolutely no surprise involved.

Yes I do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . Theodore Roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . And it should also be remembered that with the exception of SOYLENT GREEN ( And possibly THE TWO TOWERS if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . In fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes GREY OWL , a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor@@@0 -I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.@@@1 -It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?'@@@0 -Brilliant execution in displaying once and for all, this time in the venue of politics, of how "good intentions do actually pave the road to hell". Excellent!@@@1 -Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad.@@@0 -Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.@@@1 -James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.

The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.

But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.

I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.

William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.

Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.@@@0 -I appreciate movies like this: smart and well-crafted, entertaining, absorbing, well-acted and nicely directed. Nobody -- even Pacino -- is chewing the scenery*, trying to stand out; one of the film's most effective moments (Aielo pulling over at his beloved off ramp) is chilling precisely because of its restraint.

Not as good as, say, QUIZ SHOW, CITY HALL is of a similar cloth: engaging the mind as well as eye, ear, and heart. Why such well-hewn entertainment flops at the box office is anybody's guess.

*You know, Pacino does chew it up in one particular scene, but precisely because it's required. Great scene, too.@@@1 -This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.

The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian?

Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it.

In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie.

Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier.

This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype.

Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.

Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film.

Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.

@@@0 -Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC!@@@1 -Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.

There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...

For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why !@@@0 -We often see movies about undesirable things going on in politics, but I still recommend "City Hall". In a role he was born to play, Al Pacino stars as New York's mayor who has to deal with the shooting of a boy. But it turns out that nothing that he does will really have any effect. In this movie, the characters are as gritty as we would expect of anyone involved in a political scandal. No matter how much you trust any given politician, you may have your doubts after watching this movie.

I understand that I can't name any specific example of something similar to what this movie portrays, but that's not the point. If we had idealistic impressions of those at the top, this movie tears such ideas down. Certainly one that I encourage you to see. Also starring John Cusack, Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Anthony Franciosa and David Paymer.@@@1 -I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. "Kind Solomon's Mines"...the very short part of the movie inside the "mines" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the "warriors". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day!@@@0 -Full marks for Pacino's rendering of the speech over the dead kid's coffin; Shakespeare's Mark Antony would be put to shame!!

Was it Paul Schrader or was it Ken Lipper who should be complimented on the remarkable dialogues? They are rich and intelligent and well worth your time if you like movies with good scripts. I found the story narrative developing quite well right up to the voice-over postscript.

There is little else to talk about in this film; even John Cusack has done better roles than this one. Interestingly, the film is very male oriented--the women are mere appendages.@@@1 -Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had.

The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything.

Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.

4 out of 10. Barely@@@0 -CITY HALL is a somewhat mixed bag. Part vignettes of NYC political life, and part moralizing tale. Al Pacino, a Dukakis-esque Boss with Presidential dreams, gives an oft times sullen or subdued performance. There's a couple times when he chews the scenery, and in the case of CITY HALL, this is where he shines. John Cusack gives a subdued and generally flawless performance, without going into caricature of a New Orleans dialect, or sliding into melodrama during the films climax. Danny Aiello as a burrough political chief, is also very good. I love showtunes, too.

The major problem with CITY HALL, and it is a good movie in many ways, is the general feeling of a lack of momentum. It comes off more like a documentary, than a motion picture. We see the action or follow the story from a detached perspective, and naturally, the viewer doesn't become involved. When the viewer doesn't get involved to a certain degree, they become apathetic towards the characters, and eventually, the plot.

This tends to alienate, and what should have been a riveting, detail divulging finale, came off as a "Hmmm...uh...okay." They say you "Can't fight city hall," as the tread worn cliche goes. Yet, it still can't stop you from thinking what might have been, if they had just tightened up the screenplay and pacing of this movie.@@@1 -I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!@@@0 -Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.

We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.

This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.

The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.

Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.

Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.

The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.

All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss.@@@1 -In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!

0 out of 10@@@0 -I liked the quiet noir of the first part, the acting of Pacino and Cusak, especially their scenes together. The moodiness of the setting and the juxtaposition of the old pol and the idealistic youth was effecting. I wish Bridget Fonda had more scenes in the movie; she was an earnest and appealing character. The film went off the rails for me when the assistant mayor starting snooping around the mafioso to get to the bottom of something his boss clearly didn't want him meddling in. Nobody in their right mind would meet a mafioso on an abandoned dock in a junkyard. Here the story became implausible. Something that I don't understand: why did the cop and Vito have a shootout if the latter was delivering info that could bring down the corrupt judge?@@@1 -Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version.@@@0 -In a performance both volatile and graceful, Al Pacino re-teams with Sea of Love director, Harold Becker.

As New York Mayor John Pappas in City Hall.

A savvy thriller thats the first film ever shot inside the lower Manhattan structure that's ground zero for the City's government.

That the other NYC locations provide the vivid settings as an idealistic mayoral aide (John Cusack) follows a trail of subversion and cover-up that may loop back to the man he serves and reveres.

Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Martin Landau, Tony Franciosa and David Paymer add more starry brilliance to this gripping tale of power.

And the power behind power.@@@1 -I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom". Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere.@@@0 -City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.

I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.

The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10@@@1 -This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.

Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal!@@@0 -The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 -Start of with the good bit: several times Swayze talks Zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. That's a great plus, as normally USA & UK movie audiences think all people on this planet speak English (just in case you're one of them: no they don't).

But the acting is 'tenenkrommend' as we say in The Netherlands (it makes your toes curl -and not in a good way). I like Swayze but in this he's awful. The muscles in his jaws make overtime and he's frowning the whole movie -some one must have told him it looks butch. No Patrick: it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. Alison Doody (Elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co-workers. Her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. And it's not. Your frock was a clue, Alison.

The best acting came from the people from the African Continent and Sided Onyulo as Umbopa I liked best. Clear, warm and in character, his performance is a joy to watch.

General: it is mwah-entertaining on a rainy day. Pity. Could have been better. Sack the director.@@@0 -***SPOILERS*** When undercover Brooklyn North Det. Eddie Santos, Nestor Serrano,was to meet his drug supplier Tito Zapatti, Larry Romano, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn in a buy and bust operation, with Tito being the one who gets busted, that things went haywire with both Det. Santos and Tito ending up getting shot and killed by each other. During the deadly shootout an innocent bystander six year-old James Bone Jr.,Jaliyl Lynn,was also killed in the cross-fire.

With New York City slated to host the 1996 Democratic Presidential Convention that summer that last thing that the city's flamboyant Mayor Pappas, Al Pacino, wanted was a possible riot over young James Bones tragic death by a possible, in was later determined that it was a bullet from Tito's gun that killed young James, member of the New York City Police Department.

What was far more shocking then even Bone's death is that his killer Tito Zapatti was given probation by the well respected NY State Judge Walter Stern, Martin Landau. When he should have been put behind bars for 10 to 20 years by being arrested with a kilo of cocaine in the backseat of his car! It soon became evident that the person who got Judge Stern his job, for a $50,000.00 payoff, was non other the Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo, Danny Aiello. It's Anselmo who's involved with Mayor Pappas in a land deal, involving the New York Subway System, that would bring him and his real estate friends tens of millions of dollars over the next two years! It would also indirectly connect Mayor Pappas in the Bone killing by connecting him to Judge Stern, who made it possible for Tito be be free, who's a mutual friend of both him and his Gomba, or Landsman, Frank Anselmo!

To keep all this from blowing up the late Det. Santons is framed, by working undercover without the authority from his superiors, in the Bone shooting. In fact those framing Santos go as far and hiding some $40,000.00 in cash in his upstate summer home making it look like he was being paid off by Tito's uncle Mafia boss Paul Zapatti, Anthony Francoisa, for letting his nephew deal drugs with him getting a piece of the action. Which may well explain him, as well as Tito, getting shot by Tito welshing on his paying Santos off!

As things turn out it's Mayor Pappas' deputy in City Hall Kevin Calhoun, John Cusack, who ends up messing everything up for his boss by being too honest in finding who was responsible in covering up Tito's criminal record that allowed him to be out on the streets. The facts that Kevin uncovered lead straight to Frank Anselmo, a major political supporter of Mayor Pappas, who as it turned out was connected by the hip to Tito's Mafia chieftain Uncle Paul!

A bit over-plotted "City Hall" does show how big city corruption can filter up, as well as down, to everyone in city government without them, like Mayor Pappas, even knowing about it. Mayor Pappas biggest sin was that he was friends with Brooklyn Boss Anselmo who was putting people into jobs, like Judge Stern, who were subjected to being blackmailed from Anselmo's real boss Mafioso Paul Zapatti.

***SPOILERS*** It only took a deadly shootout in Williamsburg to set everything into motion not by only Tito, besides Det. Santos and James Bone, being killed but why he was allowed to be out on the street in order to bring the very popular New York City Mayor down. Mayor Pappas was looking forward to much bigger things, like Governor or even President, in his future political pursuits. As it turned out his top deputy Kevin Calhoun in not looking the other way was responsible for his demise. As well as that of the Mayor's good friend Frank Anselmo and the person whom he helped put on the bench, as a state judge, Judge Stern. Who's decision in letting Tito Zapatti off made this whole disaster, which resulted in at least a half dozen murders and one suicide, possible!@@@1 -The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.@@@0 -Working from a script written in part by Nicholas Pileggi, best known for writing the book Wiseguy, which he adapted into the movie Goodfellas, and for writing the book and screenplay Casino, director Harold Becker shows how connected circles scratch each other's backs, even in the command of a comparatively honorable mayor like Pappas, who is regarded as a presidential prospect. As Cusack follows the paper trail of the dead mobster's probation report, his skepticism is agitated. How did this violent young man get probation rather than a jail sentence? We meet the other players in the plot, not the least of which is Danny Aiello, the political boss of Brooklyn, and Tony Franciosa, the Mafia boss whose nephew was shot dead. How and why these people are affiliated I leave to the movie to divulge, though there are never any misgivings that they are.

The narrative is told generally through the eyes of the Cusack character, a visionary from Louisiana who admires his boss and hopes to learn from him. Much is made by everyone of bureaucratic knowledge passed down through the generations. Some of the dialogue is ungracefully erudite, but considering I just described the building blocks of the story as bureaucratic knowledge, one can't say it doesn't work. The shooting case builds against the seasoning of two other issues on the mayor's desk: a charge by Aiello for a subway stop and an off-ramp in Brooklyn to aid a new banking center, and the city's bid for the next Democratic convention. Individual idiosyncrasies are also explored, including Aiello's emotional bond with the music of Rogers and Hammerstein.

Much also is made of menschkeit, a Yiddish expression, which, Pappas explains to his deputy, is about the bond of honor between two men, about what happens between the two hands in a handshake. This connection doesn't mean much to Bridget Fonda, the lawyer for the policeman's association who defends the dead cop's honor and fights for his widow's pension even as incriminating evidence appears. Little by little, the deputy mayor comes to grasp that menschkeit is such an influential notion that it outclasses he law.

There are various scenes of hard impact, including one where the Brooklyn boss comes home for lunch in the middle of the day, his wife asserts her interest through the medium of the dish she has cooked, and then the Mafia boss drops in by surprise. There is also a compelling, and markedly conjectural, late scene between the mayor and his deputy.

One scene handled with delicacy is comprised of the mayor's decision to speak at the funeral of the slain child, in a Harlem church. His advisers tell him he won't be wanted there. But he goes anyway, and cranks himself up for a spiel of unabashed hyperbole, Pacino and his character both.

It gets an impressive reaction from the congregation, but the mayor knows, and his deputy knows, that it was artificial, and the way they scrupulously evade discussing it, in the limousine taking them away, is a subtle employment of composure and innuendo. This is a script that knows it has to supply Pacino with the reason why most of his fans go to see him, and immediately follows its quota with the reality that silence has much more inherent meaning than speech.

Pacino and Cusack are convincing together throughout the movie, the older man unbreakable and aware, the younger one anxious to learn, but with ideals that don't sway. Pacino is innate with his down-to-earth capacity to marry common sense and inventive imagination, inspired flair and matter-of-fact realism. Cusack moves very freely in spite of his dark defensiveness.

The Bridget Fonda subplot development is unnecessary, but it is a result of veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader's otherwise shrewdly perceptive belief in the worth of every character, and each is fleshed into earnest embodiments. Aiello, for instance, is a highlight because he evokes his character's joie de vivre and sensitivity to his environment.@@@1 -OK. Not bad movie making if it were from an original script. BUT IT IS NOT!

Which part of "in this story there are no women, except for Foulata and Gagoola" introduction by Haggard did the producers, directors and writers not understand? I mean, it is pretty plain English. I understood it at age 10!. The beauty of KSM is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds, the colonial Africa, the unforgiving desert and Kukuanaland, a hidden and isolated kingdom. That should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. But, nooo, they have to throw "romance" into it. Pathetic. Suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. Give it up. Until a Peter Jackson wannabe comes along and "does it right" you may as well keep re-reading the tome. BTW, there is a sequel book (actually a pre-quel) called Allan's wife. It gives background to the story of Quatermain. It is a bit creepy but good.@@@0 -Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!@@@1 -The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.

The movie continues throughout to "Hollywood-ise" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.

All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain.@@@0 -I read the negative comments before viewing this film and undeterred, went ahead and started watching. I admit that I had to rewind quite a few times as the film is incredibly complex, involved and full of detail. That is a good thing but also, quite unexpected in this culture of car chases, explosions, gratuitous sex and general violence that substitute for plot and character development. In fact, what a welcome departure, however, I am so used to not paying a lot of attention to what I watch.

This film is chock full of character development and plot line; the kind that we used to analyze when I was in high school. It requires actual mental participation on the part of the viewer. What a nice change. I would compare it to 'All The President's Men' in terms of generic subject matter. That is, it is a mystery about intense misconduct on the part of elected officials and those with enough influence upon officials to essentially 'own' them.

Unlike 'All The President's Men', this film makes an effort to give a couple of the characters actual personality. In this sense the movie is a character study like 'The Negotiatior' with Samuel Jackson and Kevin Spacey. In that movie, their characters are both city employees and the plot is extremely intense. Yet, the plot is dependent on the ability of their characters to cooperate with each other, trust each, and ultimately unite together against the corrupt Police Department. There is more gun fire in this film and the specific plot is different but generically, there are many similarities.

I WILL say that City Hall requires a whole lot more concentration. In fact, I was struck how parallel it was to past and present political scandals I've seen in my life going back to Watergate. The thing is, the public knows that something is wrong, for sure! but following the details is hard to do. This movie is not even close to being as complex as real life but it actually is realistic to life in its complexity. I think that is one of the reasons that previous posters have criticized the film: unrealistic expectations.

If one watches this knowing what they are about to see and are up to the experience, it really is excellent! I watched it 3 times in a row! The acting is superb and the directing is flawless. The weakest link is John Cusak's accent.@@@1 -The year 1934 was when Shirley Temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. Unfortunately, the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. Two of those things were singing and dancing. Another was a short, interesting film that kept people's attention and got their minds off The Depression. You know the other keys to Shirley's successful films.

This film achieved none of the above, despite the star presences of Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard and despite a very good director in Henry Hathaway. In addition, there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring, and too many arguments between a sullen Lombard and Cooper. To top it off, you didn't get the normal feel-good ending which is what the public wants. I guess they learned after this movie.@@@0 -Across the country and especially in the political landscape, people with any kind of political ambition, should take time out to see this film. The movie is called " City Hall " and with little imagination, its synopsis can take place anywhere in America. It just so happens to open in New York. Here we have the story of a popular politician named Mayor John Pappas (Al Pacino) with enough savvy to run a major metropolitan city with very little effort. His right-hand man is none other than Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun (John Cusack) an equally bright individual who's ambitions are tied to his mentor and both seemed destined for higher office. Everything points in that direction, until a police shooting ignites an investigation spearheaded by Marybeth Cogan (Bridget Fonda) who believes the guilt points towards city hall and the mayor. A six year old boy and a police officer's death are blamed on a career criminal who's questionable freedom leads to an apparent cover-up by political pay-offs and city corruption involving union leaders like Danny Aiello played by Frank Anselmo, corrupt judicial officials like Judge Walter Stern. (Martin Landau) and mafia bosses like Paul Zapatti (Anthony Franciosa) who are deeply involved. Also implicated, are party officials like Larry Schwartz (Richard Schiff) who works for the probation office of New York. But it is the bond between the mayor and his deputy which is taken to task by the accidental shooting. A great vehicle for Cusack and a sure bet nominee to become a classic. ****@@@1 -Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan.@@@0 -This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.

So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie!@@@1 -First, before reading further, you must understand that I'm not neo-nazi, I'm just trying to understand correctly Hitler to be sure nobody like him take power again.

I've seen this series and found it awful. I mean, OK, it's interesting to look, but is it real? I searched for answers and found one: absolutely not. First, Hitler wasn't angry all his life, the series shows an angry Hitler, even when he is a child. Second, Hitler never wanted to abuse his daughter, in fact, it is highly probable that Hitler, in reality, was gay and fought all his life to choke this secret. Third, people will hate me but it's true: Hitler was charming. How do you think he managed to get to power if he was so hateful and ugly? Because he was charming. That's a common point I found in the interviews of people who live near or far of him (of course, not Jews).

This series was awful because if you think that Hitler was just an angry bastard, ugly, and of course, not charming at all, you're wrong. If you think that, you will let people like him take power in countries and you don't want that. If you really understand how Hitler managed to get into power, and stop thinking he was just awful, you'll be able to find dangerous politicians like him (of course, remember he was elected) and stop theme before it's too late.

Life is important to protect, this series is just awful to show us the truth, if we continue to see Hitler like that, another one will take place exactly as the first did.@@@0 -Wow... 5 more hours of Riget. Lars continues the great combination of occult, dark horror and soap-opera drama. Picking up exactly where the last episode of the previous series left off(complete with the same high intensity and suspense, though that doesn't last; for better or worse), this installation in the franchise seems somewhat more bent on haste... in the last series, there seemed to pass a day or a week between each episode, whereas in this, it clearly is one long stretch... where one episode ends, the next begins. A lot can be said about Lars von Trier... but he is very diverse and pretty eccentric. Both qualities show in this. The plot continues its excellence, now giving a few regular characters that were minor players in the previous four episodes more attention. Basically every character from the first returns, at least as far as the main roles go. The pacing isn't as sharp as in the first part, and I found myself less gripped by this one. That is not in any kind of way to say that this didn't involve me, though... I still found myself constantly watching, and at several points reacting strongly, often out loud, to what was going on(extremely unusual behavior for me, as I am an incredibly silent person), as I also was during the first. Like the first, this also brings up some loaded ethical questions. Building on the foundation from the first, this brings the story further... and being a sequel, the scope is also bigger. Grander. More spirits, more bizarre occurrences, more subplots. The strong graphic material of the first also returns, and it's been kicked up a notch. The characters are developed further. The acting is amazing, as that of the first. Udo Kier solidifies his immense talent, to anyone who doubted it. Playing a very difficult character(anyone who has seen the first series can most likely figure out what I mean) *and* acting in a language he didn't speak(he was later dubbed)... and still handing in such a strong performance. The cinematography remains great, and is still very hand-held, with rapid zooms and the occasional long take. The editing is sharp, with a few direct cuts in sound(though these were more prominent in the first). Now, with all that said, I would really like to be able to rate this a perfect 10... or at least just under, like the first four episodes. I truly enjoyed watching, and I don't regret it in the least. But this does have shortcomings... the ones the first part had and more. As the first, the humor just takes up too much space... and this time around, it's even worse. There are several new regular characters that are there for no other reason than to provide comic relief... three of them, no less. Scenes are set up and executed for no other reason than to make the audience laugh. Fine for a comedy, but what is it doing in such a dark and unpleasant, yes, nothing short of sadistic at times, horror piece? Helmer's solitary secret hiding place of solitude is changed from the hospital roof... from which he could see his beloved Sweden... to a bathroom. With an angle from inside the bowl. No, you read that right. In general, the humor seems more low-brow... more sex and bodily function jokes, which, again, begs the question "Why?". Whilst most of the writing is excellent, some of it is downright dire. Several scenes are basically copied from the first mini-series(one would guess due to their popularity when it aired). At times, the drama seems a bit more bombastic than that of the first, and it jumps too much at times. Fortunately seldom, but still noticeably, plot points and items are explained away too easily(a certain character living in Denmark for no apparent reason, for example... anyone who's seen it knows who I'm speaking of). The two dishwashers, while still mysterious and insightful, become too much of a gimmick... too overexposed, in the end, I guess. Most of the scenes with them are still enjoyable, though. In addition to that, I want to reassure any reader of this that in spite of all the negative things I have just written that this is still mostly good... definitely enjoyable, compelling, powerful... and in my humble opinion, it should definitely be seen by anyone who liked the first(though if belong in that group; do not expect to feel that the story is finished after watching this any more than you did after the first). I recommend this to any fan of Lars von Trier and anyone who enjoyed the first Riget and wants more where that came from. I urge anyone who's even considering watching this to make sure you've seen all of the first before you do... I bought this before I bought the first, but I held out on watching until I had bought the first and watched that, and I can't tell you how glad I am that I did. Though this features a brief summary of the events in the first, there are an immense amount of details and aspects that you would miss out on if you didn't see it before watching this. Slightly lesser sequel, but definitely still one to watch if you liked the first. 8/10@@@1 -There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/test_1.txt b/data/part_data_all/test_1.txt index 1a7efaf..32c7f5b 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/test_1.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/test_1.txt @@ -1,1000 +1,100 @@ -Excellent political thriller, played much quieter and slower than other, higher ranking films in this genre. When people talk about Pacino and Cusack how do they manage to skip over these amazing career topping performances? A story of friendships, father-son relationships, corruption and deceit. The two actors gel amazingly well together, and the supports from Aiello and Fonda are equally as impressive, although Aiello is brilliant, especially when the papers run to press. Instead of focussing on an over complex corruption scandal, it creates wonderful characters who show the human side of failure an political bribery, The final scenes with each of the main characters are wonderfully written and acted.@@@1 -If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it "shellshocked" now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.

This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie "paths of glory", the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.

Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.

The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more.@@@0 -I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal.

Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.

The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know

All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating.@@@1 -Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.

Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.

So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.

Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.

All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.@@@0 -Being a transplanted New Yorker, I might be more critical than most in watching City Hall. But I have to say that before even getting to the story itself I was captivated by the location shooting and the political atmosphere of New York City that Director Harold Becker created.

For example there's a reference to Woerner's Restaurant in Brooklyn where political boss Frank Anselmo likes to eat. There is or was a Woerner's Restaurant on Remsen Street in downtown Brooklyn when I lived in New York back in 1996. It was in fact particularly favored by political people in the Borough though they did have a couple of other hangouts.

No surprise because the script was co-authored by Nicholas Pileggi who still writes both political and organized crime stories. He knows the atmosphere quite well and he sure knows how those two worlds cross as they do in this film.

A detective played by Nestor Serrano goes for an unofficial meeting with a relative of mob boss Anthony Franciosa and things erupt and three people wind up dead, including an innocent 6 year old boy whose father was walking him to school. The story mushrooms and at the end it's reached inside City Hall itself.

Al Pacino plays Mayor John Pappas and John Cusack is his Deputy Mayor a transplanted Louisianan, a state which has a tradition of genteel corruption itself. He's the outsider here and in trying to do damage control, Cusack finds more than he bargained for,

Danny Aiello plays Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo and for those of you not from New York, his character is based on the late Borough President of Queens Donald Manes who was also brought down by scandal. He's very much the kind of Brooklyn politician I knew back in the day whose friendship with organized crime and favors done for them, do Aiello in.

City Hall was the farewell performance on film for Anthony Franciosa, one of the most underrated and under-appreciated talents ever on the screen. No one watches anyone else whenever he's on.

Al Pacino's best moment is when at the funeral of the young child killed, he takes over the proceedings and turns it into a political triumph for himself. His is a complex part, he's a decent enough man, but one caught up in the corruption it takes to rise in a place like New York.

For those who want to know about political life in the Big Apple, City Hall is highly recommended.@@@1 -This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.

This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.

One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"@@@0 -Well, there is a plenty of ways how to spoil a political thriller. Usually they are derivative or too ambitious, often they feature a conspiracy that is totally paranoic and unbelievable. But City Hall does not do neither of the above mentioned. The plot is cleverly crafted, story is believable. As far as characters go I would say this movie is a solid average. No character seems out of place and Al Pacino is brilliant as always. His portrayal of a charismatic NYC mayor is superb and proves again that Al Pacino belongs to the absolute top of American actors nowadays.@@@1 -I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.

After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.

And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.

The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.

Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.@@@0 -I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.

Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no.@@@1 -I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?

I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler.

4/10@@@0 -Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.

M. Pitts@@@1 -I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.

The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).

One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.

The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.

There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.

Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.

If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.

Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.

Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth.@@@0 -Documentaries of this kind are often very opinionated. This film seems to take all opinions out and let the viewer decide what to do with the information provided. It is sad the conditions these poor people have to work in, this film does a great job of showing the ugly side of sweat shops. The film Mardi Gras: Made in China was a good way of showing the world how something as petty as beads for a celebration can effect the lives of so many people in another country.

I had to watch this film for an English class where we spent our time talking about sweat shops and how some people are trying to eliminate them and this film helped get the topic rolling. It was a great, very informative movie and I'd recommend anyone see it, it kinda opens your eyes.@@@1 -Simply put, this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. The title, The Rise to Evil, should tell you that this isn't going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with Hitler's character. Rather, from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby Hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background, we are given a view of Hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian, seemingly ripped right out of a Saturday morning TV show. The film REALLY wants to make its case that Hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that Hitler was evil? Ultimately, making him such a one-dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept, phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named Time's man of the year). This film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century, and try to delve into his mind. Instead, it basically just says, "Hey! Hitler was evil! Just thought you might like to know..." over and over again. The great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. Give me a break.@@@0 -I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).

The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought??

Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.

I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much.

I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.

A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.

I wish everyone could see it.@@@1 -I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.@@@0 -Sharp, well-made documentary focusing on Mardi Gras beads. I have always liked this approach to film-making - communicate ideas about a larger, more complex, and often inscrutable phenomenon by breaking the issue down into something familiar and close to home.

I am sure most people have heard stories about sweatshops and understand the basic motives behind profit and capitalism, and globalism's effect on poorer nations (however people feel about it). Rather than expound on these subjects and get up on a soapbox (not that there's anything wrong with that, other than such documentaries typically preach to the converted), this documentary simply shows Mardi Gras beads, how they are manufactured, by what people, and under what conditions, and then how they are utilized by consumers at the end of the process. It openly and starkly investigates the motivations of everyone involved in the process, including workers, factory management, American importers, and finally, the consumer at the end of the chain.

I felt a little sickened by this; equally by the Mardi Gras revelers, but also by the way the workers in China have accepted their situation as normal and par for the course (even if they have some objections to the details of how they are managed). The footage of the street sweepers cleaning up the beads off the streets at the end, made a particular impression. But that was just my reaction; I can see how someone else might read this documentary a little differently.

Unlike other documentaries on this subject, I don't think you have to have any specific political opinion to be affected by this. This is ultimately a story about human beings and our relation to the goods we produce and consume. If you have ever bought a product made in the Far East, this should give you something to think about.

Outstanding and highly recommended. Need to see more documentaries like this. Kudos to all of those involved in the making of this film.@@@1 -The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).

Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.

I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.

The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.

The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.

This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.@@@0 -Wow! Wow! Wow! I have never seen a non-preachy documentary on globalization until I saw MARDI GRAS: MADE IN CHINA. This film has zero narration and combines verite footage with sensitive interviews with four teenage workers in China who live inside a factory compound. They play with toys, jump rope, and dance. Yet, the majority of their days and nights consist of work, work, and work -- but the footage of their work is illuminating and mesmerizing to watch. The owner of the factory in China is amazingly open, so much so that he hits home the effects of globalization while he "punishes" the workers. Astutely following Mardi Gras beads from China to the Carnival, the film reveals how the local is connected to the global through humor and interesting, compelling footage from both cultures. One of the most interesting parts in this film is the cross cultural introduction of factory workers and Mardi Gras revelers to each other through pictures. Here, the film comes full circle and shows how images can be a point of communication and transformation. The film is never preachy, is not guilt driven, and allows everyone's point of view to be present. At the end, we -- the viewers -- make up our own conclusions about the complexity of the film, and globalization.@@@1 -This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.

The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.

If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent "Inside the Third Reich" 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.

As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.@@@0 -Sequel to "The Kingdom" is bloodier and even more twisted. I only saw half (I was exhausted and couldn't sit through all 5 1/2 hours) but I loved what I saw. Ghosts, blood, murder, poisoning, mutated babies, voodoo...this has it all! If you have a strong stomach and like weird movies this is for you.

Also, you don't have to see Part 1 to understand this...you'll figure it out!

Does anyone know if Kingdom 1 and 2 are available on DVD? Sitting through these marathon movies in a theatre is tiring.

Sadly, there probably won't be a "Kingdom 3"--Ernst-Hugo Jaregard (Sig) died a year after this was filmed. But you never know!@@@1 -There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming "You're a super crime-fighting valentine!"

Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming "HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.

The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!

Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.

The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands.

Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final "twist" is more "Huh?" than "Hah!" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did.@@@0 -Excellent film that reveals how people are connected to the taken for granted, ordinary beads exchanged during Mardi Gras. The film is much more than a commentary on globalization. In fact, it humanizes the workers in China, the owner of the factory, the bead distributor in New Orleans, and even the revelers in New Orleans. What stands out the most is the director's ability to tell a tricky story with complicated details in such a simple and seductive way. His amazing access to the factory is another aspect that's intriguing and I only wish I knew how he got inside. It's a beautiful story without sentimentality or guilt associated with it, and the conclusion provides hope without leaving people feeling alienated.@@@1 -If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.

Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.

If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.

I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.@@@0 -The film exposes the blatant exploitation of the Chinese worker - generally female - garnering footage from the Chinese business owner who shares his unashamed and delusional viewpoint, his American counterpart also as unashamed and delusional, the oppressed workers who are given a voice and, of course, the drunken Americans who wear the beaded necklaces mindlessly celebrating in New Orleans.

The glimmer of hope comes when some Americans are actually outraged that people making their beaded necklaces were getting paid like $0.10 per hour to do so. You also have a feeling that the workers may have a chance to escape working in the bead factory, but will probably do so when they get fed up with the punishment treatment popular with the factory owner and/or they just get too exhausted to work up to 20 hours a day of hard labor.

I have wondered where those necklaces came from, not realizing how completely grueling and arduous it would be to make them. I just truly appreciated this film as it beautifully portrays the impact American indulgence has over something we consider relatively innocuous in our society on peoples on the other side of the world. Honorable mention goes to Wal-Mart. It is simply amazing. And clearly, just the tip of the iceberg!@@@1 -I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.

Have any of you Yankees watched the movie "Der Untergang" or "The Dawnfall"? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch "Der Untergang":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.@@@0 -In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels.@@@1 -This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the "fact" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, "uncle" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, "uncle."

The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around "boasting" about it? - I don't think so.

Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.

All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's "Merry Widow" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any "Flying Dutchman" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!

Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?

I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.

Give it a miss.@@@0 -Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen.@@@1 -Just imagine the real Hitler, who was a master of propaganda and speech, would have been such a mumbling moron as Carlyle portrayed him in this film.

Nobody would have followed him, not even a desperate, unemployed guy in the 1920s.

This is just a Hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself, disguised as "true history".

I pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. Carlyle and the producers didn't get anything right with this.

Why was Hitler able to win so many people, a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage? Why did people follow him to death? By portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. This film is a mixture of old WW2 propaganda and MTV urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. Imagine a film about Churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins.

This film is a disgrace and I wonder how they could talk an actor like Carlyle into this dreck.@@@0 -More like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them!

Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.

Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)!@@@1 -I watched this hoping to find out something I didn`t know about modern history`s most infamous man and couldn`t help thinking that history has been rewritten in HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL . Hitler was so obsessed with his niece that he threatened to have one of her admirer`s shot . Hitler turned up with a gun in his hand to arrest Ernst Rohm . Forgive me for asking but haven`t the writers confused Adolph Hitler with Tony Montana from SCARFACE ? That`s bad enough but what really offended me was that there`s entire chunks of historical context missing in this mini series . Germany lost the first world war and the allied powers made Germany pay a heavy price for doing so. It was this economic environment that led the German people to have someone - anyone - to restore their pride and that`s why they turned to Nazism . The German humiliation of the 1920s caused by the allied powers seems to be entirely missing therefore there is no way that HITLER:THE RISE OF EVIL can be taken seriously as a historical document, and I haven`t even mentioned that Himmler and Goering are conspicous by their absence

There is one positive point about the mini series and that`s Robert Carlyle in the title role . Okay some of his mannerisms are wrong and his voice is a little too loud ( Archive recordings show that Hitler had a soft seductive voice ) but Carlyle is a charismatic actor and he does manage to communicate Hitler`s own charisma on screen . Comments in the British press that Carlyle resembles the synth player from Sparks more than Adolph Hitler are unfounded and he gives one of the better interpretations of Hitler.

I liked the performance by Robert Carlyle but I hated everything else about this mini series and wondered why on earth it was made in the first place . There`s nothing to recommend it to serious history fans@@@0 -His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.@@@1 -Well first off I'd like to add that I myself is somewhat of a historian so what I look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. But this is however not the case here. Sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn't entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in his youth, he even worked for Jews before world war one. It was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the Jews. His upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate, Hitler as a child wasn't a disturbed little brat. He had a more or less normal upbringing. Nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is Hitler.

Robert Carlyle is a great actor but he doesn't really fit in the role as Hitler. Hitler wasn't as impossible and unstable as he is portrait-ed here. Under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom "manipulated" people through his charms. His unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war.

I'd like to see a film about Hitler's life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. I really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example Hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. It is much better to actually tell the story EXACTLY as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like! The ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. Because it seems as if they didn't even know what really happened. Hitler wasn't even shot in the revolutionary march in Munch, his shoulder was ripped out of its socket.

It gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.@@@0 -THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.

In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.

Although I had no idea who Zizek was – he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese – with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.

Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.

There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes – even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault – then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.@@@1 -

As usual, I was really looking forward to a new TV/film on a favourite subject of mine - makes a nice change from a *strangely familiar* documentary about Kursk or Stalingrad on the History Channel.

I avidly looked forward to Pearl Harbour and Enemy at the Gates - but was rudely brought down to earth with the realisation of the malevolent, stupid-ifying power of Hollywood - and its ability to spend an absolute fortune on tripe.

So yet again I got excited about 'The Rise of Evil', especially as I heard that Ian Kershaw was involved, as I've enjoyed his books. I can see why he quit.

To quote some guy responsible for this rubbish:

"The Kershaw book was an academic piece," he said. "It was

quite dry. We needed more incidents."

Incidents? Are they totally nuts? Hitler's life cannot be said to be without 'incident' - yes Kershaw's two volume Hitler biographies were long and detailed, but they were supposed to be.

The thesis behind 'Rise of Evil' seems to be:

Hitler was a very bad man - no he was a VERY bad man, who HATED jews, and just in case you miss this, we're going to emphasise the fact in EVERY scene in the film.

There was no effort whatsoever to try and explain the mood of the time, and why Hitler may have adopted the views and strategy he did. Needless to say - unlike the generally excellent 'Nazis - A Warning from History' - this film neglected to point out the fact that nearly all of the leaders of the Munich communist rising were Jewish, and that this may have coloured his views on the subject - and his axiomatic linking of the jews with Bolshevism - an absolutely crucial aspect to understanding much of the Nazi era.

But there was not much understanding to be done - the film-makers weren't going to go there, so we just got all the stuff we knew about anyway. We certainly don't get the fascinating fact that Kershaw alludes to, which has Hitler briefly being a socialist/communist immediately after WW1. That would of course be far too complex for the film to handle, and might even detract from the relentless 'he was very bad' mantra which bangs away incessantly.

We know he was a bad man. However, we also know that he was a mesmerising figure both as a public speaker and in more private situations. He could be polite and even sympathetic, and of course espoused some views like vegetarianism, anti-alcohol and anti-smoking that many Guardian readers could agree with. He was also famously fond of animals, hence why that wholly invented dog-flogging scene was so absurd.

He was also, from all the accounts I've seen, a brave soldier in WW1. Whilst we saw him with his Iron Cross, we never get to see how he won it (acts of bravery were not in the script, needless to say). We also get no insight whatsoever into why he was so fired up by his war experiences, whilst Sassoon, Owen, Brook, Remarque and so many others found it so repellent an experience. And again, like the point above re the jewish/bolshevik link, this is vital to anyone's understanding about the subject. Why did he love war so much? Why did he think it was always a good idea, despite massive evidence to the contrary? Why didn't he care about his colleagues who died? Or maybe he did - but still drew the wrong conclusions.

This film certainly didn't have anything of any interest to say on this either.

As all too often these days, the film is a classic example of 'making history relevant to the present' and inventing stuff or leaving awkward facts out to fit in with 'the present' - which all too often is to cater to the lowest common denominator, where you don't trust your audience an inch, so you just ram stuff down their throats, knowing (sadly correctly) that you'll always get away with it because there are so many dumb fools in the world.

History is really about making us relevant to the past and seeing how it colours our present, for better and for worse. This rubbish was a great opportunity, lost again. They spent millions on it, and the locations and large scenes were impressive, but told us nothing at all we didn't know already, and promoted no understanding of this dark period in human history.

WT@@@0 -Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.@@@1 -No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.@@@0 -The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.

Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.

That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.@@@1 -Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused.@@@0 -I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.

The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.

Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.

Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.

I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood.@@@1 -Like watching a neighbor's summer camp home movies, "Indian Summer" is a sleep inducing bore. Eight alumni campers are barely introduced, when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. Fine actors, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton are totally wasted in this film. One camper's observation that "everything seems so much smaller than I remember it" is repeated at least ten times, enough to make you squirm. The anticipated pranks are neither funny or original, unless you think that short sheeting is a real "howler". This movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. "Indian Summer" did not make me homesick, just sick. - MERK@@@0 -I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends!@@@1 -There's one line that makes it worth to rent for Angel fans. Everyone else: this is just a very bad horror flick. The female characters are typical horror movies females. They are wooden, annoying and dumb. You are glad when they are killed off. Long live the strong female character in a horror movie!!@@@0 -There's the danger with the critic/philosopher Slavoj Zizek with his film, directed by Sophie Fiennes, which takes together a wonderful amalgam of silent, horror, sci-fi, surreal and other contemporary thrillers together to make his points ofr Freudian comparisons to overload. But in the Pervert's Guide to Cinema he also makes even the more far-reaching points a point of departure from any other analysis I've seen on a collective section of films. While it doesn't cover the expansive territory Scorsese's movie documentaries cover, the same attachments are there, and Zizek has a definite love for all of these "perverse" examples and films, primarily the work of Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin and Tarkovsky. Yet one shouldn't go into seeing this- if you can find it that is, I got to see it almost by luck- thinking Zizek will just try and dissect all of the psycho-sexual parts or parts referring it in an obtuse, deranged manner. If anything he opens up one to points that might never be considered otherwise- would one think of three of the Marx brothers as representations of the Id, Super-Ego and Ego (Harpo's example is most dead-on for me).

He's not just one to take on the classics though, he also considers the food for thought in The Matrix and Fight Club- in representations of the split between fantasy and reality and if the matrix needs the energy as much as the energy needs the matrix for the former, and in the attachment of violence in dealing with one's own self as well as ones double in the latter. He even throws in a piece from the pivotal moment in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin becomes Darth Vader, and the implications of shunning away fatherhood under that back mask at the very moment his children's births happens elsewhere. The ideals of fatherhood, male sexuality, the male point of view in turning fantasy into reality (at which point Zizek rightfully points to as the moment of a nightmare's creation), and female subjectivity, are explored perhaps most dead-on with Vertigo. This too goes for a scene that Zizek deconstructs as if it's the Zapruder film, where he dissects the three colliding points of psycho-sexual stance in the 'don't you look at me' scene in Blue Velvet.

Now it would be one thing if Zizek himself went about making these sincere, excited, and somehow plausible points just face on to the camera or mostly in voice-over as Scorsese does. But he goes a step further to accentuate his points of fantasy and reality, and how they overlap, intersect, become one and the same, or spread off more crucially into some netherworld or primordial feeling for some characters (i.e. Lost Highway) by putting himself IN the locations the films take place in. Funniest is first seeing him in the boat "heading" towards the same dock Tippi Hedren's boat heads to at the beginning of the Birds; equally funny is as he waters the Blue Velvet lawn he goes on to explain the multi-faceted points of Frank Booth; only one, when he's in Solaris-like territory, does it seem a little cheesy. But Zizek seems to be having a lot of fun with this set-up, and after a while one bypasses the potential crux of this gimmick and Zizek's words come through.

There were some films I of course would've expected, chiefly from Hitchcock and Lynch, but a treat for movie buffs come from seeing two things- the movies that one would never think of seeing in a film about films titled the Pervert's Guide of Cinema (top two for me would be the Disney Pluto cartoon and the exposition on Chaplin's films, albeit with a great note about the power and distinction of 'voice'), and the ones that one hasn't seen yet (i.e. the ventriloquist horror film, Dr. Mabuse, Stalker, among a few others) that inspire immediate feelings of 'wow, I have to see that immediately, no questions asked.' Zizek is a powerful writer with his work, and puts it forward with a clarity that reminds one why we watch movies in the first place, to be entertained, sure, but also to have that actual experience of sitting down and having something up there, as he put it, looking into a toilet. It's probably one of the greatest films about cinema, and in such a splendidly narrow analysis of how Freud works its way into films regarding desire, the Id/Super-Ego/Ego, and of the supernatural in fantasy, that you may never see...unless distribution finally kicks in, if only on the smallest levels.@@@1 -I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."@@@0 -"Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire; it tells you how to desire."

So begins "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema," in which Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek applies his Freudian/Lacanian brain-scalpel to world cinema. This film in three parts is the second feature documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes (yes, sister of Ralph and Joseph), and it is a notable accomplishment, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours of talk from one man and yet remaining humorous and engaging throughout. In essence, it is an extended film lecture, and one of the best you may ever get. Over the course of the film, Zizek guides us through a catalog of obsession and desire in film history. He touches on more than 40 films and, in particular, spends a great deal of time with Hitchcock, Lynch, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, the Marx Brothers, and Eisenstein. But he also takes a close look at "Persona," "The Conversation," "Three Colors: Blue," "Dogville," "Fight Club," and "The Exorcist." Thematically, Zizek's inquiry into cinema ranges from thoughts on the death drive to the "coordinates of desire," and from Gnosticism to "partial objects."

"The Pervert's Guide" will be a slightly better experience if you've taken a few minutes to bone up on your basic Freudian terminology. However, even if you're not steeped in psychoanalytic theory, Zizek's dynamic and hilarious personality carries the film forward with such gusto that you aren't likely to balk at the specialized lingo. The film frequently cuts from movie clips to images of Zizek *inside* the movie he is talking about--that is, in the original locations and sets. The transitions in these sequences sustain such tension and humor that the trick never gets old. And Zizek himself is constantly making us laugh, either from bizarre little jokes or from his enthusiastic insistence on, for example, a bold Oedipal interpretation of "The Birds." And this go-ahead-and-laugh attitude, on the parts of both Fiennes and Zizek, is essential to the gonzo character of the film. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps us digest Zizek's weird medicine. After all, don't we all have a sense that, past a certain point, psychology theorists are just pulling our legs?@@@1 -This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.

It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in "The Big Chill", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help.@@@0 -Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.

Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost.

And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola)

There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end.

But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.@@@1 -I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his "Valley of the Dolls". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....@@@0 -Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.

For those of us in the minority like myself, I found "The Perverts Guide To Cinmea"....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.

A little like Scott Mclouds' "Understanding Comics", director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from "The Birds"(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).

Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.

Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.

Why is "The Sound Of Music" kinda fascistic, why is "Short Cuts" about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in "The Birds", what is there to learn about the mind from "Alien Resurrection", what does the planet of "Solaris" want, what does "Psycho" and "The Marx Brothers" have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.

The role of the voice in both "The Excorcist" and "Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith", is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).

Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.

And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than "Reality Of The Virtual", and more direct than "Zizek!", two other pseudo-docs, about "the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism", as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world.

"The Perverts Guide To Cinema" is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches "how to desire, and not what to desire", and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most "stimulating" movie watching experiences I've ever had.@@@1 -A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards.@@@0 -I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Not as salacious as it sounds, this is a three-part documentary (each episode is 50 minutes) featuring Slovenian superstar philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Zizek takes us on a journey through many classic films, exploring themes of sexuality, fantasy, morality and mortality. It was directed by Sophie Fiennes, of the multi-talented Fiennes clan (she's sister to actors Ralph and Joseph).

I enjoyed this quite a bit, although I think it will be even more enjoyable on DVD, since there is such a stew of ideas to be digested. Freudian and Lacanian analysis can be pretty heavy going and seeing the whole series all at once became a bit disorienting by the end of two and a half hours. It didn't help that an ill-advised coffee and possession of a bladder led me to some discomfort for the last hour or so.

My only real issue with this is that Zizek picked films that were quite obviously filled with Freudian themes. He spends quite a bit of time on the films of Hitchcock and David Lynch, not exactly masters of subtlety. I would have liked to see him try to support his theories by using a wider range of films, although that's really just me saying I'd like to see part four and five and six.

Zizek is very funny, and part of the humour was watching him present what amounted to a lecture while inserting himself into the actual scenes from some of the films he's discussing. So, for instance, we see him in a motorboat on his way to Bodega Bay (from Hitchcock's The Birds) or sitting in the basement of the Bates Motel (from Psycho). Which is not to say that his theories are not provocative. Even when I found myself disagreeing with him, it definitely made me think a little more deeply about the films. Which is exactly what he's trying to accomplish.@@@1 -**SPOILERS** A bit ridicules made for TV movie has sexy and middle age gold-digger Isabelle Collins, Susan Tucci,doing a number on every man she comes in contact with in the movie. First winning over their hearts then their wallets and then, when their no longer any use to her, thrown in the wastepaper basket like a used up Kleenex tissue.

Isabelle's first victim is non other then her abusive, on keeping Isabelle from raiding his bank account, husband Stewart, John O'Hurley. It's later in the movie when Isabelle gets very friendly with former plumber and now yacht salesman Richard Davis, Philip Casnoff, that she, without really telling him, has the totally love-sick Richard get a contract out on her unsuspecting husbands life. Getting this ex-convict, in fact as soon as he's released from prison, Daggett, Nicholas Campbell, to do the job on Stewart Richard soon finds out that he didn't get exactly what he paid, $15,000.00 in cash,for.

Getting a little too greedy Daggett not only blew Stewart's brains out but took a solid gold watch, that Stewart offered him in order to spear his life, as well. The watch was easily traced to Daggett as he tried to pawn it at a local jewelry shop where he was quickly arrested. With Doggett spilling his guts out on who hired him to whack Stewart it doesn't take long for the long arm of the law to arrest Stewart's, by hiring Doggett, killer Isabelle's husband to be ex-plumber and yacht salesman Richard Davis! Davis' arrest by the police happens just as he and Isabelle took the vows of matrimony in a local church!

Isabelle manipulates everyone, exclusively men that fall head over heels for her, to her advantage by getting them to do her dirty work. Always playing the part of the naive housewife or widow or lover or even client Isabelle seems to live a charmed life always one step ahead of the law and police. No matter what she does Isabelle covers her pretty behind so well that it's almost impossible to pin her down on any, in having others do them, of the many crimes that she commits, through a second party, in the film.

After screwing, figuratively as well as literally, her first husband Steven her second husband, for less then ten seconds, Richard and finally her, or Richard's, attorney Gavin Kendrick, Kamar De Los Rey, Isabelle knows that it's only a matter of time before the police get wise to her. With the D.A getting both Richard and Kendrick to turn evidence against her Isabelle now knowing that everything is fast closing in on her makes her final move. Getting everything in order, by transferring all her cash overseas, Isabelle and her 10 year-old daughter Ruby, Lauren Collins, shoot down to the passport office in order to get clearance, passports, to get out of the country.

It's then when the cagey and clever Isabelle makes her first and possibly last and fatal mistake in the movie. Isabelle is told by the passport clerk, Don Carrier, she'll have to wait a full 48 hours for her, and Ruby's, passport to clear! Just enough time for the police to find and arrest her! Outlandish ending that goes against almost everything and every ethic that's in a film noir or crime movie. An ending that will not only blow your mind but your concept of what's right and wrong in the world!@@@0 -He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we – the film viewers – perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well…? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.

Slavoj Žižek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by Žižek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting Žižek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide… is Žižek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, Žižek's views or Žižek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (Žižek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide… is dominated by his voice – delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.

What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being – think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.

Most notable are Žižek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of Žižek's lecture memorable and – unlike others – difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).

The question isn't whether Žižek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are Žižek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) Žižek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing…? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes…? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to Žižek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when Žižek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. Žižek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of Žižek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films – but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.

The ultimate question is: did Žižek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach Žižek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer.@@@1 -Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering...@@@0 -Always enjoy the great acting talents of Harry Hamlin,(Jim Lansford),"Strange Hearts",'01, who plays a straight as an arrow husband, who seems to get all kinds of attention from very charming young women, namely, Lisa Zane,(Lynne),"Monkeybone",'01, who is a co-worker with Jim Lansford and you wonder why he doesn't try to hit on her for some fun. Annie Potts,(Kris Lansford),"Breaking the Rules",'92,is a very warm and sweet loving wife to Jim and has complete trust in her husband. Kris wants to always keep her husband happy and even buys him a home with out him even seeing it for himself. This film will keep you guessing right to the very END!@@@1 -This rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of John Woo's talents. The cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. Unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). Nonetheless, it's worth seeing, especially if you can catch in letterboxed.@@@0 -I was watching this movie on Friday,Apr 7th. I didn't see the last scene ( cos I was talking with my bro n Mom in law at the same time ). Anyone can tell me what happened to her?I watched slightly that her husband was hearing someone was talking to his wife in the bedroom and then he opened the door,she's dead already.

What happened to her? Did she kill herself? How could she arrange everything like the phone calls,meanwhile she's at home when her husband was talking to this strange admirer?Anyone can explain to me,please. I am so so curious!! ( in the end,I read that she suffered from Multiply Disorder Personality ).

Thnks before.@@@1 -I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.

The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: "He made me do it!" Dolemite's cry: "&$*@$ are you for real???" Subtlety was never his strong point.

Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.

But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, "The Matrix" it is not.

Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations.@@@0 -I liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.

I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the "real" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.

Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.

Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.

You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what?@@@1 -this film has its good points: hot chicks people die

the problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.

also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.

What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...

I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store@@@0 -Her Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.

Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this "Lifetime" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. "Her Deadly Rival" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit "Fatal Attraction". In "Rival", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is "her deadly rival" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the "domestic thriller" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash.@@@1 -it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes! most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a 8 out of 10 but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great@@@0 -The stories in this video are very entertaining, and it definately is worth a look! The first one concerns a young couple harrassed in the woods by two rednecks, with a great, but unexplained twist at the end.

The seond is the best of the lot, and it alone, makes this worth watching - A man is attacked by a dog, which he fears to be rabid - He finds shelter in what appears to be a hospital, but he finds out the employees there are not exactly what they appear to be...... Great twist at the end, and this episode alone scores 10/10! If the others were up to par with this one, this would get 10/10!

The third is the weakest of the bunch - A girl meets with some guys and has wild sex! There appears to be no point to the story until the end, with a good little twist, but it is spoiled by the awful first part!

Never the less, this is a great movie that will not do you wrong at all! Well worth a rental!@@@1 -"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however.

** (out of four)@@@0 -I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end!@@@1 -He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.

Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole"

"Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.

No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.

I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door.

What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something?

Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.@@@0 -I now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes.@@@1 -Did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what?!?

Sound effects, background music and the editing in general was so bad you'd think some 12-year-old wanna-be made the film.

Most of the acting was good considering the script... the "innocent virgin" played her part really well.

The mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel... but, unfortunately for all involved, that's not the case.

Turn Left was made better than this movie and those guys didn't even have any money!!! Good thing I didn't rent the movie myself!@@@0 -The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.

Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history… if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name –Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.

Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.@@@1 -MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.@@@0 -A sophisticated contemporary fable about the stresses that work to loosen and ultimately unbind the vows of marriage. The main thrust of the narrative arises from a 'homily' spoken by a country priest following the wedding vows of a young cosmopolitan couple from Milan. In it, the future course of the marriage is spelled out, which bit by bit frays from the stresses of modern life. The 'moral' of this story within a story is that in order for a marriage to work out, both now, and in the past, it has been necessary for that relationship to be abutted by family and friends. This film was a relative blockbuster by domestic Italian standards. It's a terrible shame that this film is not available in either DVD or VHS.@@@1 -I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.@@@0 -"CASOMAI" was the last movie I've seen before getting married, just last year.

It was also the first movie I've searched for, after I was married, because we promised to offer a copy to our priest.

Sometimes, reality is not that apart from fiction. To all those who wrote that priests like "Don Camillo" don't exist in real life, I would recommend them to visit my Priest Pe. Nuno Westwood, in Estoril, Portugal :-)

To all others, I would only recommend them to see this movie, before and after the "I do!" day :-)

Rodrigo Ribeiro Portugal@@@1 -please don't rent or even think about buying this movie.they don't even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 & i think its worth less than that.the main reason why i rented this d movie was because Jenna Jameson is in the movie lol between 2-5 min.i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know.Ginger Lynn has more acting time in this movie than Jenna & she's not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name.i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see Jenna almost throughout the whole movie & nude most of the time.this movie is a big disappointment & such a huge waste of time.@@@0 -This movie contains personalities that so deliciously are playing their parts, I love the final, when nobody knows what are they gonna do about their life, but it's completely great when you see and realize that the priest is right, is jut for two, so what are the other persons doing there? The movie embrace you to a new life, to experiences, to be able of dream with the other person and reach those dreams. Also shows you the life itself, hard like it is. But gives you the option to choose what you want and what you really need. Hope this comment works for you. The movie it did worked well for me. I bought the movie by the way ;) Take care.@@@1 -For your own good, it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. This flick STINKS. Now, I like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies, but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make: It takes itself WAY too seriously. And, unfortunately, that's not it's only problem.

It's the story of the murderous Beane clan of the British Ilses transposed to modern times. An interesting premise, but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it.

#1- Why is the biggest name on the CD box Jenna Jameson? She's a below average looking woman who can't act, and she has a minor role. ANSWER: She's apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews), so I guess this is a "cameo" appearance for her. She's giving the film much needed "name recognition", it seems. Her top billing isn't any indication of her talent, though, it's an indication of how UNtalented the rest of the cast is.

#2- How can film makers be so stupid to think Canada can be passed off as Ireland? It doesn't even remotely look like Ireland. And the house that the guests/victims stay in is this great big North American wood frame Edwardian thing. They should have skipped the whole Beane theme and developed a story that took place in N.A. Also, if you're going to make a movie that takes place in Ireland, it's probably best to have more than one character with an Irish accent (and that was a REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD Irish accent.) Now,this wouldn't have been so bad if the director wasn't trying to make the next "Night of the Living Dead", but it seems he was. Too bad. He could have had some fun with it. In fact, some of the scenes weren't far from being unintentionally comedic as they were.

Like the infamous gutting scene, were the woman is chained to the table, stripped naked, and then sliced open and eviscerated. That's funny, you ask? Well, in the deleted scene version, the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. It's actually funny after awhile. And what self respecting cannibal eats intestines, anyway? Do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens? Heck no, we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. Oh well.

Some of the other cast who were annoying: the whiny, creepy Howard Rosenstein. I'm not sure, but I THINK he was supposed to be cast as a STUD. In fact, he's as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. Which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying Gillian Leigh fell for him.

I checked Gillian Leigh on her link on IMDb, and apparently it's important to know that she graduated high school with honors. I can't decide if it's more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation, the honor student is doing nude soft-core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named Howard Rosenstein. Wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie? If they have, hopefully they'll get the message: AVOID THIS FATE! GO TO COLLEGE!!! I could go on and on, but why. If you like gore, you'll find something redeeming in this flick, but not much more.@@@0 -I was very pleased to go and see a "Milanese" film shot in Milan. Alessandro Alatri is a Roman director who has understood properly and fortunately printed in a film the Milanese philosophy.

Film tells the story of a standard -in career- Milanese couple, starting from "the birth" to the death. The birth-wedding is so typical out of any scheme that becomes original and involves all the wedding guests in a flash back story of how the couple came to each other and felt in love. Life is hard in the "urbe" of Milan and after the sweeties old days became tougher and tougher, then finally the product: a child, who instead of strengthen further the couple relationship it weaken because "the selfish effect" typical of a nowadays "metropolis" personality. The advertising environment with all the "creative" under stress atmosphere helps to get well involved in the plot. We are losing the life values and this is well and deeply reflected in this nice and sharp movie from the Senza Pelle's director.

The actors are well chosen, Stefania Rocca nice and well characterised, and a positive surprise, an unexpected good Fabio Volo, well known by the "trash" TV serie: Le Iene.

Rating: 7/10@@@1 -Four porn stars romping through the Irish woods sounds like a film to watch. We have Ginger Lynn Allen, Chasey Lain, Taylor Hayes, and Jenna Jameson all together in one film. Are you licking your lips? Well the mutant creatures who resulted from centuries of inbreeding were certainly licking their lips as they feasted on the entrails of their victims.

Yes, there was some flesh exposed - far too little considering the cast - but, it was soon ripped open to expose dinner for these creatures. There was definitely some action that probably has not been seen before, and more than one person lost their head in the situation.

Unfortunately, director Christian Viel did not show much promise and I am not likely to watch his later efforts.@@@0 -"Casomai" is a masterful tale depicting the story of a young couple who wade through the murky waters of marriage. The story is very believable in telling the strange see-saw between oblivion and continuous interference by others, which is fairly typical in Italy (one may wonder whether such happenings are different elsewhere, though). Pavignano and D'Alatri were very good at writing, and that is one of the strong points of the movie. Acting by Stefania Rocca and Fabio Volo is sober and gripping. And the figure of the sympathetic priest is funny and well-rounded. All in all, a truly deserving movie, probably one of the best Italian movies of the year.@@@1 -Thanks to this film, I now can answer the question, "What is the worst movie you have ever seen?"

I can't even think of a close second, and I've seen some really bad movies.

Absolutely nothing works in this film. Name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. Honestly, I've seen better on YouTube. Here's some typical dialogue:

"Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve, is that you?" "Steve, I'm not kidding" "Steve, this isn't funny!" "Steve, are you there?" "Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve?"

"ARggh!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! Nooooooo!"@@@0 -This is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.

The so called "culture of death" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.

A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.

Congratulations on the cast and director.

Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from me!@@@1 -I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad.@@@0 -Overall the film is OK. I think it's better than Sepet and much better than Gubra in term of its story, its sentimental value.

There are a few scenes that makes me touched. Yes I agree that the boy (Mukhsin) did his acting very good. Brilliant. I can say that his acting is almost natural.

However, the song 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' by Nina Simone really "'menaikkan' my 'bulu' 'roma' ".

I love the song. Both the song. "Ne Me Quitte Pas" and "Hujan". I just downloaded the song. Beautiful.

And salute to Yasmin. The movie's ending credit makes me touched again. We can see how Yasmin really appreciated her parents in an unique way.

I think the movie deserves that Grand Prix Of International Jury at Berlin Film Festival.

I give 8.5 out of 1o stars.@@@1 -This started bad, got worse, and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the DVD to the person we borrowed it off and choke the C**T to death with it. Avoid this film, a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots, would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen Jenna Jameson naked a million times. If anyone feels the need to watch this film, i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately, as an example i would say trying to cram a Lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. I hear that this film was not the original version, i would very much like to view the original, as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot, and apparently most of the nudity, can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with Christian Viel he owes me an hour of my life back!@@@0 -Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb!@@@1 -I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.@@@0 -Everyone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.

Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at "deeper" analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her "British" upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?

Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several "smaller" films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema.@@@1 -First of all, Jenna Jameson is the best actress in this movie, and she's just awful. This movie has every horror move cliché in imagination, and all badly played. The over-sexed teen couple. The comical(not)horny jock. The snotty cool chick. The creepy local color guy. The parental-type couple. The virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. The dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. It's almost like you're wishing that they'd all die sooner. I saw the rough cut of this film a while ago, but somehow, this just got worse. Sure, the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat Jameson's implants, but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. Avoid at all costs.@@@0 -The movie starts off in a classroom setting where not surprisingly, our main actress, Orked was seen in a Chinese Language class. Later in the film, she was asked on why (by Mukhsin) that she was sent to learn Mandarin. Her answer was simple for a child she is; coz she's already known the Malay Language well.

It's a bit of a romance one may thought of it, but once you've stopped yourself from reading too much critics and go for it, you'll notice the typical elements of Malaysia. The movie basically focuses on 10 year old Orked who met 12 year old Mukhsin in a game of which many would think of it as a boy's game. Running out of players, Mukhsin (who was new in that village) was forced to allow Orked into the game, in which she eagerly showed the male side of her. Orked is no such ordinary girl as she depicts more of the male behavior as you will see in the movie, defending Mukhsin from much violent encounter with her school-bullies, throwing one of the bully's bag out from the school bus window, throwing punches and kicks on Mukhsin's brother where after he teased Mukhsin and so on and so forth. Both were awesome buddies, and stick closer than that, but with a slightest of misunderstanding in which most of us would all respond to in the same way, parted the both of them until the day when Mukhsin left town.

Now the movie depicts the first love between Orked and Mukhsin, they started out as friends, but slowly evolving into somewhat more of a closer relationship and then towards BGR. You would notice, the changes Yasmin made in the movies for each of the main actor and the actress when they go through love. The different character was portrayed with eagerness and mild humor. The scenes were all in random but it depicted so much reality in it that you'd be stuck on the screen for a long time. You will love the movie for what it is, and not because that you want to be patriotic to the local scenes, coz it means much more.

As the movie envelopes around the two love birds, it also manages to find its lens towards Orked's parents, her mother who was educated in England, speaks very good English and in which, her husband and the caretaker in the house with very much attempt tries to speak back their own kind of English, which was humor all the way indeed. Let me just explain to you why humor can be such a prominent thing in this movie. And that explanation or description that you may portray can be given in only one word and that is RANDOMNESS. Often more than not, we don't learn to laugh at ourselves, and when we do, we do it at the expense of others. It is just like what the movie Just Follow Law by Jack Neo would have mentioned - Often when we are ourselves, we don't see the person in us we are, but when only when we are in another person's body, then only would we learn to see who we really are. And that is how humor applies as well, more so than just dignity.

The movie was filled with such randomness that the typical facts of our routine lives as we carried it out could be all the way filled with laughter if we want it to be.

The other focus of this movie was on how Orked's neighbor, a couple in which the husband is no longer loving to his wife, and wanted to find another. Pak Koboi as what he's nicked after was seen polishing his motorbike daily and would take it out for a ride with his newly found girlfriend. The producer did not fail to show you perhaps why the husband wanted to find another wife. The wife was a real hurler or KPC as we Chinese would call it, having interrupting on other people's business and sending her own daughter to tease Orked in words only adults would use. After all, what goes around, comes around, and that's probably why bad things kinda want to happen to her. In every time, being nice to people around you won't hurt at all, unless you have an ego to protect, but then again, what's it worth? The movie also centers around Mukhsin's brother, Hussein who would go out to town everyday until very late at night, smoking, drinking, and also finding 'girls'. He's the total opposite of Mukhsin, but that's all perhaps because of family problems. Both the brothers were staying with their aunt and the parents were far away from them. I will not reveal more of the story line as it would spoil much of the interest in wanting to find it out for yourself, but the slightest of all elements in which the producer wanted to send a message across to the viewers is the life of us all. She wanted us, me at least to view life from our own perspective when we are not ourselves. Movies in a way, take us out from our own body, places us in the character's position, and use our empty mind then to view on the happenings of it. Depending on the type and genre of the movie, you will be mesmerized by how a good movie such as this would portray and imply a significant impact on you.@@@1 -Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)"Feast of the Dead" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the "evil breeder" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.

Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick.@@@0 -Mukhsin is a beautiful movie about a first love story. Everyone probably has one, and this is writer-director Yasmin Ahmad's story of hers, with a boy called Mukhsin. We know that her movies have been semi-autobiographical of sorts, having scenes drawn upon her personal experiences, and it is indeed this sharing and translating of these emotions to the big screen, that has her films always exude a warm sincerity and honesty. Mukhsin is no different, and probably the most polished ad confident work to date (though I must add, as a personal bias, that Sepet still has a special place in my heart).

Our favourite family is back - Pak Atan, Mak Inom, Orked and Kak Yam, though this time, we go back to when Orked is age 10. The characters are all younger from the movies we've journeyed with them, from Rabun to Gubra, and here, Sharifah Amani's sisters Sharifah Aryana and Sharifah Aleya take on the roles of Orked and Mak Inom respectively, which perhaps accounted for their excellent chemistry together on screen, nevermind that their not playing sibling roles. The only constant it seems is Kak Yam, played by Adibah Noor, and even Pak Atan has hair on his head! Through Mukshin the movie, we come full circle with the characters, and the world that Yasmin has introduced us to. We come to learn of and understand the family a little bit more, set in the days when they're still living in their kampung (revisited back in Rabun), where Orked attends a Chinese school, and packs some serious combination of punches (and you wonder about that burst of energy in Gubra, well, she had it in her since young!). The perennial tomboy and doted child of the family, she prefers playing with the boys in games, rather than mindless "masak-masak" with the girls, and favourite outings include going with the family to football matches.

The arrival of a boy called Mukhsin (Mohd Syafie Naswip) to the village provides a cool peer for Orked to hang out and do stuff with - cycling through the villages, climbing trees, flying kites. And as what is desired to be explored, the crossing of that line between friendship and romance, both beautiful emotions.

Mukhsin does have its cheeky moments which liven up the story, and bring about laughter, because some of the incidents, we would have experienced it ourselves, and sometimes serve as a throwback to our own recollection of childhood. In short, those scenes screamed "fun"! We observe the life in a typical kampung, where some neighbours are very nice, while others, the nosy parkers and rumour mongers, spreading ill gossip stemming from envy. There are 2 additional family dynamics seen, one from an immediate neighbour, and the other from Mukhsin's own, both of which serve as adequate subplots, and contrast to Orked's own.

As always, Yasmin's movies are filled with excellent music, and for Mukhsin, it has something special, the song "Hujan" as penned by her father, as well as "Ne Me Quitte Pas", aptly used in the movie Given that the Yasmin's movies to date have been centred around the same characters, the beauty of it is that you can watch them as stand alone, or when watched and pieced together, makes a compelling family drama dealing with separate themes and universal issues like interracial romance, love, and forgiveness. Fans will definitely see the many links in Mukhsin back to the earlier movies, while new audiences will surely be curious to find out certain whys and significance of recurring characters or events, like that pudgy boy who steals glances at Orked.

And speaking of whys, parts of Mukhsin too is curiously open, which probably is distinctive of Yasmin's style, or deliberately left as such. I thought that as a story about childhood, recollected from memory, then there are details which will be left out for sure. And subtly, I felt that Mukhsin exhibited this perfectly, with not so detailed details, and the focus on what can be remembered in significant episodes between the two.

Another highly recommended movie, and a rare one that I feel is suitable for all ages - bring along your kid brother or sister!@@@1 -Rented a batch of films from Blockbuster last night, and this was the first one I watched (it was late on a Saturday night, wanted a "horror film fix")...

Wow, this was awful, almost embarrassingly so... Stupid slasher-type story I really thought films like Scream had put an end to; amateur actors delivering clichéd' and insipid dialogue that is hard to believe was actually typed and read off a page; and gore scenes that are nothing to get excited about (especially when occurring in a film this poorly scripted).

But I've always believed no film is 100% percent totally worthless. Here's the few good things I can say about this mess:

#1 Bobbie Phillips: love this actress. She's the only member of the cast who displays any acting talent whatsoever. The only reason I took a chance on renting this is because her name was on the front cover. She acquits her presence in this dreck with professionalism, even though she looks bemused at times that she's acting in such a moronic story.

#2 Unintentional Hilarity: This is the kind of film I can remember seeing back when there were still grind house theaters around the country and they used to include crap like this as the third movie on a triple-bill with some prestige thriller movie that was finally making it's way to the hinterlands. Unfortunately, in this direct-to-video age, most viewers have to endure these turkeys alone now without the communal experience of being part of an audience jeering and throwing stuff at the screen because the film is so terrible. Which leads to--

#3 Porn Stars Trying To Act!: Mostly on hand because the producers don't need to cajole or plead with them to disrobe for extended sex scenes, but this trade-off usually means they actually get to speak some lines that are supposed to advance a story (other than "ooh yeah baby", or "harder!"). And, proudly, they all deliver expertly at looking foolish when trying to act. I'd almost exclude Ginger Lynn Allen from this group if her character wasn't supposed to be an Irish mom and she's actually attempting at times to do an accent, which just keeps the smiles coming.

It's nice to look for the positive in all experiences, and that's what I took from this cesspool a.k.a "Evil Breed"@@@0 -I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).

I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future.

And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).

It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out.

All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it.

It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.@@@1 -I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus.

First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.

So, if you don't care at all about the following:

- acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).

-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were).

- theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others).

- soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script).

- scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).

So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and "women," this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.@@@0 -A classy offering from Amicus, producer Milton Subotsky and director Peter Duffell ('The Far Pavillions' etc) turn in a classy, intelligent 'four-hander' with a strong cast (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Jon Pertwee, Ingrid Pitt etc) all giving stylish performances, despite a low budget which results in a few 'un-special effects'. The most outstanding contribution, however, is that of the 7-year-old Chloe Franks who turns in chillingly effective account of her part which makes one's blood run cold. Only spoilt by the lurid title wished on the film by its distributors, this underrated release, a cut above the run-of-the-mill 'blood 'n' guts' shocker movie, is for those who appreciate a little thought with their horror.@@@1 -Yes, definitely better than my viewing of Death Tunnel. Actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. It was kind of like Wrong Turn meets the Hills Have Eyes.

BUT: 1.) When the "kids" (high school or college?) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen, everything Shae says is almost an exact quote from Scream (1996). The thing about the big-breasted girls etc.

2.) Was Steve NOT a bootleg Randy from Scream? 3.) Besides the fact that it took place in October, what the hell did the movie have to do with Samhain? Pretty unnecessary if you ask me. I find it humorous when I see those horror movies from the 80's that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram.

4.) Wow they made a Sam Raimi reference!!! 5.) Why was Gary and his sister in the movie? They're characters had nothing to do with anything. And hes so psychic that he couldn't even see his OWN death? 6.) When Gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point, the deaths became simply Troma-licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door? 7.) Gary's sister commented on Haggis- thats primarily a Scottish dish, not Irish.

8.) So the lesson is if you ARE like Shae and don't have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film, you'll be the one to live? 9.) The mutants were pretty cool, but they looked like walking dishes of Chili con carne.

10.) When they brought in Gary's sister, did they forget that Steve HAD been strapped there and wonder where he went? 11.) Was there not more than one killer? Shae beat that one, but never encountered any more of them.

12.) What was with the flashbacks to those other people? Half of them Shae didn't know if they were dead or alive, so what was with that? 13.) Why didn't they kill Gary and his sister before? 14.) Why did no one ever call the police? And apparently everybody KNEW those people lived in the woods, why did they never organize some kind of raid? 15.)As far as I know, they were not zombies OR vampires- so how could she "turn into" one at the end? I'm with everyone else on the giant "huh?" at the end.

Way better than death tunnel, but still quite sloppy. I still don't understand why they even placed it IN Ireland, considering Samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.@@@0 -This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances!, only the last story disappoints. All the characters are awesome, and the film is quite chilling and suspenseful, plus Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are simply amazing in this!. It's very underrated and my favorite story has to be the 3rd one "Sweets To The Sweet", plus all the characters are very likable. Some of it's predictable, and the last story was incredibly disappointing and rather bland!, however the ending was really cool!. This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances, only the last story disappoints!, i say it's must see!.

1st Story ("Method for Murder"). This is an awesome story, with plenty of suspense, and the killer Dominic is really creepy, and it's very well acted as well!. This was the perfect way to start off with a story, and for the most part it's unpredictable, plus the double twist ending is shocking, and quite creepy!. Grade A

2nd Story. ("Waxworks"). This is a solid story all around, with wonderful performances, however the ending is quite predictable, but it's still creepy, and has quite a bit of suspense, Peter Cushing did an amazing job, and i couldn't believe how young Joss Ackland was, i really enjoyed this story!. Grade B

3rd Story ("Sweets to the Sweet"). This is the Best story here, as it's extremely creepy, and unpredictable throughout, it also has a nice twist as well!. Christopher Lee did an amazing job, and Chloe Franks did a wonderful job as the young daughter, plus the ending is quite shocking!. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's one of the best horror stories i have seen!. Grade A+

4th Story ("The Cloak"). This is a terrible story that's really weak and unfunny Jon Pertwee annoyed me, however the ending surprised me a little bit, and Ingrid Pitt was great as always, however it's just dull, and has been done before many times, plus where was the creativity??. Grade D

The Direction is great!. Peter Duffell does a great job here, with awesome camera work, great angles, adding some creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!.

The Acting is awesome!. John Bryans is great here, as the narrator, he had some great lines, i just wished he had more screen time. John Bennett is very good as the Det., and was quite intense, he was especially good at the end!, i liked him lots. Denholm Elliott is excellent as Charles, he was vulnerable, showed fear, was very likable, and i loved his facial expressions, he rocked!. Joanna Dunham is stunningly gorgeous!, and did great with what she had to do as the wife, she also had great chemistry with Denholm Elliott !. Tom Adams is incredibly creepy as Dominic, he was creepy looking, and got the job done extremely well!. Peter Cushing is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is likable, focused, charming, and as always, had a ton of class! (Cushing Rules!!). Joss Ackland is fantastic as always, and looked so young here, i barely recognized him, his accent wasn't so thick, and played a different role i loved it! (Ackland rules). Wolfe Morris is creepy here, and did what he had to do well.Christopher Lee is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is incredibly intense, very focused, and as always had that great intense look on his face, he was especially amazing at the end! (Lee Rules!!). Chloe Franks is adorable as the daughter, she is somewhat creepy, and gave one of the best child performances i have ever seen!, i loved her.Nyree Dawn Porter is beautiful and was excellent as the babysitter, i liked her lots!. Jon Pertwee annoyed me here, and was quite bland, and completely unfunny, he also had no chemistry with Ingrid Pitt!. Ingrid Pitt is beautiful , and does her usual Vampire thing and does it well!.

Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out of 5@@@1 -I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.@@@0 -Enjoyed catching this film on very late late late TV and it kept my interest through out the entire picture. This wonderful creepy, yet mysterious looking English home, with evil looking decorations and weired furniture and rooms that make you wonder just why anyone would want to rent this home or even own it. There are four(4)Tales concerning this house, and each resident of the home meets with all kinds of problems. You will notice the beautiful lake and pond around the home and also the sweet singing of birds, but don't let that fool you, there is horror all over the place. Peter Cushing,"Black Jack",'80 gives a great performance as one of the person's living in the home and even Christopher Lee,"Curse of the Crimson Altar",68 and his little daughter, Chloe Franks,(Jane Reid) make a wonderful exciting story together, his daughter for some reason loves to read WITCHCRAFT BOOKS! If you love creepy, horrible and mysterious films, with lots of surprises, this is the FILM FOR YOU!!!!@@@1 -Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher.@@@0 -This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!@@@1 -Understand i'm reviewing the film I have seen. I realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film, thus neutering it completely. When seeing names like Ginger Lynn and Jenna Jameson attached, I knew I wasn't going to get a horror classic, but at the very least I expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. But no, this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film, I mean it's easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes', but they suddenly cut away, or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. How does one screw up cannibals' and porn stars? I mean thats a winning formula, it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive's wife or something, because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. Reading about it a few years back in Fangoria, I was excited, it looked like a fun film, but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere, and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled Evil Breed. Hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday, as I think a good movie exists in this mess, but until then best grab a twelve pack of Bud, cause thats the only way you'll make it through this movie.@@@0 -This is a very amusing and sometimes quite creepy anthology, that if a bit short in the screenwriting department, more than makes up for the shortcoming in the acting, location work and overall exuberance. The best episodes of this are the first with Denholm Elliot playing a horror writer stalked by a character from his novel in the works ( a perfect example of the acting pulling this out of the merely pedestrian); the third, with Christopher Lee as a man terrified of his own daughter and the final episode with the late great Jon Pertwee as a pompous horror film star who gets more than just a new role on his latest project. The dialogue between Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt is sparkling and inspired, both obviously relishing the opportunity to really ham it up! Cushing is typically good in the weakest segment, which certainly isn't helped by the fact that the wax figure of the woman he's obsessed with down at the local wax museum, is anything but "beautiful" as we are told to believe she is! Someone of shocking beauty was needed and instead we're given a woman with a jaw of a turtle. Minor quibbles aside this movie and it's wonderful country house setting is one to catch when you can.@@@1 -Justifications for what happened to his movie in terms of distributors and secondary directors, drunks and receptionists doing script rewrites aside, let's just take this movie as it's offered, without extraneous explanations.

This movie is God awful. Straight up craptastic. Rather than rehash what may serve as a plot, I'll run a highlight reel of some curious points that made me scratch my head.

A class (of 5) take a field trip for a history class to the middle of friggin' nowhere Ireland. These students may be Canadian or American, it's difficult to tell. That it was filmed in a Canadian forest rather than Ireland is rather obvious as well. One student seems to know nothing about history and is basically the "dumb jock" character from a number of kick ass 80's movie, except when he channels Randy from Scream. One character may be Chris Klein's stunt double. He has a girlfriend who probably gets killed, but it's never really established if that is true. One character is sullen and removed from her peers...just...cuz... and then there's a blonde girl. Yay blonde girl.

Ireland has a population of 2. They're cousins. Gary, who is clearly the same age or younger than the rest of the cast, is called "sir" more than once. He's very ominous and wears a knit cap. His cousin is a roughed up porn star with the worst Irish accent to befoul film in my lifetime and most likely beyond.

Picturesque Ireland features many Canadian forests and swampy areas and 2 ducks which appear more than once in cut scenes.

The producers got a discount on volume fake entrails. Good for them.

Unbeknownst to me, horribly inbred freaks have access to brand spanking new hunting knives. Perhaps there's some kind of outdoorsman outlet nearby with a blind and deaf clerk working the register.

Also unbeknownst to me, if you inbreed for roughly 600 years, as the story leads us to believe happened, you end up being somewhat lumpy, yet amazingly spry and fairly strong. Genetics are a wonderful game of craps.

There may or may not be more than one freak in this film. Reference is made to "them" and we see shadows, yet only one odd looking dude is seen ever. And when one odd looking dude is finally killed, apparently all danger is passed. I'm running with my initial assumption that no one thought to outfit a second man in full make up, thus they just used the one. That's what it looks like on screen, anyway.

Richard Grieco should be ashamed.

Also of note, aside from those shiny new knives, the inbred freaks have access to some posh leather gear, as once Richard Grieco cuts his bonds, there are fresh ones ready for the next sucker who gets tied up...who also then escapes, because the chains give you enough slack to just undo them, making one wonder why they even bother tying anyone up.

A dead body in a shack will be maggot-ridden after what I would guess is about 2 hours has passed. Said dead body will also have glasses on, when no characters wore them. Curious.

Jenna Jameson appears for no reason from stage left, chats for 2 minutes, vanishes stage left. In the middle of a giant forest. That's not unusual, as Gary can also pop out of nowhere, which is also known as whatever exists in TV land off the screen.

Ms. Jameson dies sadly and somehow her clothes vanish like my hopes that this movie wouldn't suck wind.

I offer a special nod to the "Breeder" character, the poor girl who has been used by the freaks for months (or maybe years) for breeding purposes. The poor girl who still has eye shadow on and emotes on camera with all the passion and conviction of a stuffed chihuahua.

The ending of this movie was clearly tacked on by a drunk or someone with a fierce mental disability that has been cultivated and encouraged with excessive gasoline drinking over the years.

Apparently this wasn't just random crap I found on the movie network late at night, apparently people have heard of and even followed this movie through it's production. How sad for you all. I have nothing more to say. May God have mercy on us all.@@@0 -For fans of 1970s Hammer type horror films, this movie should be a treat. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that Peter Cushing was wasted on the worst episode. In general, however, this is a solid, spooky little movie. If this is not Amicus' best film, it's certainly one of them. The best episode, rightfully saved for last, is the one featuring Jon Pertwee as a horror film actor--it is really excellent. As good as Pertwee was in this role, it's hard to believe he didn't do more of these types of movies. All in all, this is an entertaining movie, which scared the heck out of me as a child, and which still gives me the creeps to this day.@@@1 -Tourists head to Ireland for a school trip to learn about Druids. What they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers.

If I had to sum up Evil Breed, it would be a low grade gore fest. The film mixes Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Wrong Turn all in one. It's just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any "fun" one would have watching it. The film has lots of random "horror" nudity...although the film also stars four porn stars, yup four, so there could have been plenty more. Breed also showcases a good amount of gore.

Evil Breed has a horrible start, with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. That's a given in a straight to video horror film, but this takes the cake. I can't really figure out who the main character is, since the one female who "lives" at the end is not really in the movie all that much. Speaking of the ending, that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. It has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one's view of the film.

You have to see this film to believe it, since there are some pretty great death scenes. There are two death scenes that come into my mind, one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest....yea her chest, don't ask me. The other id when the guy gets his intestines, yet again, ripped out through his asshole. Does that kill the guy? No, the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. These scenes remind me so much of Dead-Alive, with the right amount of humour in each. I also got the sense of Evil Dead, with the pointless mentions of horror films and Sam Raimi. Along with Halloween, when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately;y to get in.

Although, the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. When the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs, her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. Distracting indeed. As well as the continuity in the film, with only one inbred killer? As well as which character dies at which moment. I couldn't tell if the breast implant chick was Jenny or Gary's sister/cousin...I can't remember. As well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body, still attached with the umbilical cord.

The horrible editing is distracting as well, the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. It did have a bad start and got better, but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. If maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film, then it wouldn't have been horribly butchered to death. Stay away from this film, unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.@@@0 -If you want to learn something about the Spanish Civil War and about all the political details and intrigues, let me tell you, you've chosen the wrong film.

This is a vision of the war as it happened in Majorca, a small island off the coast of Spain. When a war like this happens in a small island that takes position for the traitor almost at once, there is no war in the open. The soldiers are sent to the front to fight, in the mainland, while another kind of war happens at home, on the small island. There, neighbours tell on other neighbours, sometimes because their political views are contrary to the new regime, but many people are told on because of old family fights, or maybe the silent introvert who has no friends is told on by someone who wants to "earn some points". And these things don't happen in the open. There were some trials, true, but many other times people would just be woken up in the middle of the night, taken out of their homes to the closest cemetery where they would be killed. And the next morning the bodies would be found, and people would have an idea of what had happened, but nobody would dare to speak or to do anything. We're not talking about soldiers killing someone they had never seen in their life. We're talking about people killing their neighbours, and probably saying hello to their widow the next day, and even attending the funeral for the guy they had killed. We're talking about villages with one or two thousand inhabitants, where everybody knew everybody.

I am from that small island and I've heard the stories my grandparents told me, and I must say that this film upset me, oh yes, it did; but I also found it remarkably beautiful and moving. The initial violence is not something the director or the writer made up, that's how things happened during that war. A kid knowing that his mate's dad is in the fascist squad that killed his dad? Completely possible. All that happened later on? Possible too. TB was real too. At that time my island was not the holiday resort it has become. People were poor, illiterate, and worked in small farms. After the war there were times of hardship.

So, you won't find a war story in this film, or at least not the kind of war story you expect. There are no battlefields, no soldiers, no political intrigues. This is the meanest kind of war, which happens when the space is limited (just check the size of the island), when neighbours fight with their neighbours, when members of the same family fight each other, and they live in a place where everybody knows everybody. You'll find a story about the damage that this particular kind of war can cause to people and the story of how they survive that damage, or maybe they don't.

I must mention the excellent work done by the writers who adapted the novel and by all the actors, who managed to sound really Majorcan. That was remarkable.@@@1 -Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.

The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.

Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.

Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.@@@0 -This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation.

Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience.@@@1 -There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...

The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.

From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.

Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...@@@0 -Now days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy.

Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas.

Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house.

I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again!@@@1 -Oh, this is so bad, it is funny. The only way one could explain something like this is a porn party with drugs that resulted in the resolution to make a movie just for fun. I mean: you get to see porn actresses topless, having sex, then killed by human mutants. There is plenty of gore, including the classic "something is wrong with her, oh no, it's half the person she used to be" and the accidental murder caused by panic. But you can also find funny stuff like intestines pulled through someone's ass and a guy running in the woods then finding himself decapitated by a wire tied between two trees (that makes a metallic doiiing sound afterward, like in cartoons). Somehow there is a market for people going beyond porn, they really need to know what's inside an actress, mere genitals are not enough. Therefore you get to see plenty of summary autopsies on slain bimbos. There is NO dialog. Jenna and Chasey have really small parts and I really wonder what Richard Grieco wanted when accepting a role here. I think this is a film one must watch with the button on fast forward and watch only the juicy stuff, just to be reminded of the old school C class horror movies.@@@0 -An excellent movie and great example of how scary a movie can be without really showing the viewer anything. It's a set of four stories all revolving around the tenants of a charmingly old-fashioned house and their various gruesome and horrific fates, all tied together by a wrap-around story about a Scotland Yard inspector searching for a missing horror film star. It starts out with a story about a mystery writer whose main character becomes a little too realistic, followed by a story about two old romantic rivals who become obsessed over a wax figure in a museum, then a story about a sweetly angelic little child who is anything but, and closing with the story of what happened to the missing film star…and what he does to the inspector. It's a gorgeous print that lets you really appreciate the work of director Duffell and what he was able to accomplish with a very small budget. Add to that the acting talents of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Joss Ackland, Ingrid Pitt and Jon Pertwee and you've got a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. Just don't answer the phone if anyone from Stoker Real Estate calls to offer you a bargain on a beautiful house in the English countryside…@@@1 -The only remarkable fact is the participation of Klaus Kinski who plays a priest. Don't ask me why he does it! A bad, bad movie overall.

@@@0 -The late, great Robert Bloch (author of PSYCHO, for those of you who weren't paying attention) scripted this tale of terror and it was absolutely one of the scariest movies I ever saw as a kid. (I had to walk MILES just to see a movie, and it was usually dark when I emerged from the theater; seeing a horror movie was always unnerving, but particularly so when it was as well-executed as this one.) When I had the opportunity to see this one several years ago on videotape (which should always be a last resort), I was surprised at how well it held up. Take the terror test: watch it at night, alone, and THEN tell me it's not scary...@@@1 -The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by "Django" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!@@@0 -(SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus…an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales…Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'… We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director.

The four stories – chapters if you will – in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original…but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and – even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new – this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film…her cleavage in particular.

No doubt about it…The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not…repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole.@@@1 -that's incredible! Fidani (who he was also a spiritist) was one of the cheapest director of all the world. This movie stole the original title of Leone's "Duck you sucker!" but tell the boring story of a Pinkerton agent against the killer "Testa di Ferro" (the improbable Gordon Mitchell, a stuntman). All is poor and crazy in this pelicula filmed into the dear landscapes of Lazio. The story is bad and crazy at the same time. Fidani was not able and ingenuos at the same time. Into the story happened some kind of crazy illogical things (like the discussion into the Sheriff's house and the demential appearance of Butch Cassidy !?!?!?!?!? yes, really Butch Cassidy,who is portrayed like an idiot). Terribles nuit americaine, absurd comportaments, illogic plot, bad acting and a fugace appearance by one of the most rewarded anchorman in the story of italian television, Renzo Arbore. Ah, of course: Klaus Kinski. Yes is great and terrible, but i'm sure he was in it only for money an for playing with iron horses) 2 of 10 but...DON'T MISS IT!!!!!@@@0 -Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.@@@1 -I am a big fan of the Spaghetti Western Genre, and I usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. Infamous Director Demofilo Fidani, however, is rightly known for some of the cheapest, trashiest, and, well, worst contributions to the genre. The plots of Fidani's movies were usually very weak, and since his talent was quite limited, he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous Spaghetti Western names like "Django" of "Sartana" to the titles. I the particular case of "Giù La Testa... Hombre" of 1971 he just took the title of Sergio Leone's "Giù La Testa" (aka. "Duck You Sucker") and added 'Hombre'. The movie can be found under various titles ("Fistful Of Death", "Western Story"...), I personally bought it under the name "Adios Companeros", which this movie shares with another Fidani film with almost the same cast, "Per Una Bara Piena Di Dollari", which is also entitled "Adios Companeros" in the German language version.

The plot is rather weak, it basically follows a guy named Macho Callaghan (Jeff Cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by Butch Cassidy (Jack Betts) and Ironhead (Gordon Mitchell).

The leading performance by Jeff Cameron is, kindly stated, not very convincing. Neither did I find Jack Betts very good as 'Butch Cassidy'. B-movie legend Gordon Mitchell, however, is always worth a try, and although he probably wasn't a very good actor, I always found his performances in the Spaghetti Westerns quite funny and original, and he actually saved some of Fidani's movies (such as the rather crappy "Django And Sartana... Showdown in the West").

There is one very funny and original thing about "Giù La Testa... Hombre" - the great Klaus Kinski is playing a priest! I could have imagined Kinski in any role, but before seeing this movie I would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. Kinski is, once again, great, although he has only little screen time, and one scene, where he breaks up a fight, is probably the only good scene in this. One more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze Joe D'Amato did the cinematography.

"Giù La Testa... Hombre" is a cheap, crappy film, but nevertheless, it has some funny moments. Being a Spaghetti Western enthusiast, I found it fun to watch, but if you're not, never mind this movie, or watch it only for the purpose of seeing Kinski play a priest. 3/10@@@0 -"The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the better anthology films of the time period.

**SPOILERS**

Tracking down a missing film star, Inspector Holloway, (John Bennett) finds that the last reported sighting was in a large mansion in the countryside. During the course of looking through the house, he is told four different stories about past residents of the house.

The Good Story(s): Method for Murder-Moving into the mysterious manor to get some peace and quiet while Charles pens his latest masterwork, Horror novelist Charles Hillyer, (Denholm Elliott) and his wife Alice, (Joanna Dunham) are thrilled with the story, which centers around a serial strangler named Dominic. After a series of strange accidents and experiences in the house, Charles begins to believe that the creation my have come to life and is haunting him and his wife. Probably one of the better entries in the film, it's easily the creepiest. The atmosphere here is what sets it apart. The scenes with the fictional character are genuinely creepy, the mystery surrounding him is really effective and there's always a classic creep-out moment. The classic moment is the kill in the psychiatrist's office, which is an all-time high for creepiness. The build-up to it, with the creaking sounds, quick flashes of a mysterious being, and the thunder and lightning in the back ground work well for this one's favor.

Sweets for the Sweet-Moving into a new house, widower John Reid, (Christopher Lee) hires former school teacher Ann Norton, (Nyree Dawn Porter) for his young daughter Jane, (Chloe Franks) while he's away on business. Ann gradually begins to unravel a dark secret from Jane's past, which John vehemently denies. When she learns the true nature of what has happened, it's far more shocking that what she could've thought possible. With the creepiest outright plot and the biggest twist of the stories, this is a quite pleasant entry. The mystery of the family is wonderfully played out, with small amounts of clues piled up here and there, and the final revelation is downright nerve-wracking. That part alone is the main reason why this one works, and Lee doesn't harm it either.

The Bad Story(s): Waxwork-Tortured by memories of his lost love, Phillip Grayson, (Peter Cushing) and his friend Neville Rogers, (Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with a statue of a woman in a Wax Museum, as the statue takes over their lives, they discover a shocking secret about the museum that haunts the both of them. There's a clever premise here, and it does provide an excuse to spend time in a wax museum, which are always creepy. This is no exception, and it looks eerie, which is helped by the florescent lighting on display on the sculptures. A dream sequence provides a great moment of suspense, but what ultimately kills this one is the slow pace. It takes a long time for events to unfold out, and most of the time is spent on exposition. It also builds up to a shock ending that can be seen coming from a mile away. Those really lower this one a bit. Had the twist been changed, it would've scored higher, the rest is acceptable.

The Cloak-Veteran horror film actor Paul Henderson, (Jon Pertwee) upset at the lack of realism on the set of his new film, goes off and buys a new vampire cloak from a specialty store. The cloak soon turns him into a vampire, going crazy on the set with co-star Carla, (Ingrid Pitt) and other vampiric acts at home. Unconvinced the cloak is the cause, he does everything he can to prove it's just in his imagination. This has a pretty decent premise, and there is plenty of opportunity for some decent scares, but what sinks it is several factors. First, it's just too goofy for it's own good. The plot twist at the end is a perfect example, which is so overdone that it's not really a shock at all, and just comes across as just plain silly. There's so few scenes of scares or attempted scares that it's just a bore to sit through. It's the weakest one in the film.

The Final Verdict: A quite decent omnibus film, there's a few small problems scattered through each of the stories that renders this a less than perfect but still highly watchable film. Highly recommended for those into the similar films at the time or who enjoy British horror films.

Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence@@@1 -A quite usual trashy Italo-Western, stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic, some mediocre actors, dirty settings, lots of punch-fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale.

This has nothing to do with Django. - At least not in my German translated version, this German DVD-release is called "Adios Companeros" and has Macho Callaghan fighting against Butch Cassidy and Ironhead because their gang killed his one (he's the only survivor). Then you have Butch Cassidy and Ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. And you have Ironhead fighting against everyone because he's just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. Yeah, that's it, no more cleverness in the storyline, hehe.

A small role by Klaus Kinski as Reverend Cotton is remarkable (that's why I bought this DVD). In one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming "I said love!" and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second - FANTASTICFANTASTICFANTASTIC!!!

It's also remarkable that JOE d'AMATO aka Aristide Massaccesi did the cinematography - I love this master of incompetent exploitation-thrash, so it was an "aahhh" for me.@@@0 -Before films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.

Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.

Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Clichés galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.

Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.

My rating: 3.5/5@@@1 -In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.

The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.

It's interesting that this film is called TWENTY MINUTES OF LOVE since the film only lasts about 10 minutes! Oh well. The plot, what little there is, involves the Little Tramp in the park. A couple wants to neck but inexplicably, Charlie insists on practically sitting on the couple's lap and really annoying them. I can't understand why and the short consists of Charlie wandering about the park annoying these people and some others later in the film. Perhaps he was looking for a threesome, I don't know. But the film lacks coherence and just isn't particularly funny--even when people start slapping each other and pushing each other in the lake. A typical poor effort before Chaplin began to give his character a plot and personality.@@@0 -The British production company Amicus is generally known as the specialist for horror anthologies, and this great omnibus called "The House That Dripped Blood" is doubtlessly the finest Amicus production I've seen so far (admittedly, there are quite a few that I have yet to see, though). "The House That Dripped Blood" consists of four delightfully macabre tales, all set in the same eerie mansion. These four stories are brought to you in a wonderfully Gothic atmosphere, and with one of the finest ensemble casts imaginable. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee (Cushing and Lee are two of my favorite actors ever), as well as Denholm Elliott and the ravishing Ingrid Pitt star in this film - so which true Horror fan could possibly afford to miss it? No one, of course, and the film has much more to offer than just a great cast. "The House That Dripped Blood" revolves around an eerie rural mansion, in which strange things are happening. In four parts, the film tells the tales of four different heirs.

The first tale, "Method For Murder", tells the story of Horror novelist Charles Hyller (Denholm Elliott), who moves into the House with his wife. After moving in, the writer suddenly feels haunted by a maniac of his own creation... The first segment is a great kickoff to the film. The story is creepy and macabre throughout and the performances are entirelly very good.

In the second story, "Waxworks", retired businessman Phillip Grayson (Peter Cushing) moves into the house, and suddenly feels drawn to a mysterious Wax Museum in the nearby town... The great Peter Cushing once again delivers a sublime performance in this, and the rest of the performances are also very good. The tale is delightfully weird, and the second-best of the film, after the third.

The third tale, "Sweets To The Sweet" is by far the creepiest and most brilliant of the four. John Reed (Christopher Lee) moves in with his little daughter. The private teacher and nanny Mrs. Norton, whom Mr. Reed has employed to instruct his daughter, is appalled about her employer's strictness towards his daughter, and is eager to find out what reason the overprotective father's views on upbringing may have... This best segment maintains a very creepy atmosphere and a genuinely scary plot. Christopher Lee is, as always, superb in his role. Nyree Dawn Porter is also very good as the nanny, and my special praise goes to then 11-year-old Chloe Franks. This ingenious segment alone makes the film a must-see for every true Horror-fan.

In the fourth segment, Horror-actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) moves into the house with his sexy mistress/co-star Carla (Ingrid Pitt). This fourth story is satire, more than it is actually Horror. It is a highly amusing satire, however, and there are many allusions to other Horror films. At one point Henderson indirectly refers to Christopher Lee, who stars in the previous, third segment...

All four segments have a delightfully macabre sense of humor and a great atmosphere. As stated above, the third segment is by far the creepiest and greatest, but the other three are also atmospheric and often macabrely humorous Horror tales that every Horror lover should appreciate. An igenious atmosphere, a macabre sense of humor, genuine eerieness and a brilliant cast make this one a must-see. In Short: "The House That Dripped Blood" is an excellent Horror-omnibus that no lover of British Horror could possibly afford to miss. Highly Recommended!@@@1 -Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.@@@0 -This movie is good for what it is, and unpretentious; I wouldn't watch it twice, however: I am a Peter Cushing completist and that's why I watched it. The best asset of this movie is: BREVITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Compared to other similar movies, it does NOT drag its feet forever as each of the four (plus one) segments lasts under 30 minutes, with the last under 10. Good uncanny vibes. In the first segment, horror writer suffering from 'writer's block' relocates to secluded old house seeking inspiration. He finds even too much of it when he starts to visualize one of his fictional madmen. Plot contrivance similar to PREMATURE BURIAL. Good use of the point-of-view twist: is the writer getting mentally ill...or (as the ending shows) his trophy wife wants her lover to play along with the husband's phobias to drive him mad & secure his estates...yet will the scheming bimbo survive to enjoy the fruit of her ingenious plan?

In the second segment two long time lost friends get together in the same secluded old house but cannot seem to help visiting a bizarre horror museum featuring the wax statue of the long lost love of their youth, which had once separated them. From the Gothic museum keeper they learn the woman portrayed is a deceased ax wielding murderer...or was she?

The third segment was the less interesting to me.

The fourth shows a horror movies actor -who thinks he's the best of all- sunken to the depths of low budget C movies. Seeking a costume to lend more credibility to his fictional vampire, he gets the real deal. This segment also lacks the solidity of the first two.

Acting is fair, with the 2 initial segments contributing the bulk of it. Good movie, taken with a grain of salt. Not the best Cushing, nor Lee...but worth watching.@@@1 -I saw this film last night (about 102 minutes) and don't know what kept me in my seat. I guess I just expected a film with Gere would have some value in it eventually but nothing of value ever came on the screen. The story is a silly excuse to pile on shot after shot of bondage and torture. There is not a character in the film that does anything like real life. The cutting "style" relies on jump cuts, mini flashbacks and overprinting to give weight to this vapid setup of a gang of sadists apparently running free for years and SURPRISE the leader is the "victim" of an executed killer. I don't see how Gere, a Buddhist, got involved in this violent, sexist trash.@@@0 -The British horror film was in terminal decline by the start of the Seventies, but out of the blackness came three films that were among the best our island produced. The Wickerman, Blood on Satan's Claw and The House That Dripped Blood made the future seem rosy, even though a lot of people knew by this point there wasn't going to be one. THTDB has the sort of cast that could easily form a wishlist, if it hadn't actually been assembled, in the bleak hinterland of 2008 you may well find yourself expecting to wake up. Waxworks is the most overlooked of the four stories and is, naturally, my favourite, Cushing's life and art are interlinked so firmly that you can't tell where performance ends and pain begins. One can only guess how this role affected such a gentle, sensitive man. Death and the maiden. RIP Peter.@@@1 -I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.

In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie ....@@@0 -The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing.@@@1 -Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand@@@0 -Yes, this IS a horror anthology film and it was a lot of fun! That's because although the film clearly was horror, some of the stories had a light spirit--and there were even occasionally a few laughs. This isn't at all a bad thing as sometimes horror films are a bit stuffy and overly serious. Because of this and because all four of the stories were pretty good, it's one of the better movies of this style I have seen.

The unifying theme that connects each story is the house itself. Four different stories involve people who either rent the home or investigate what happened to the tenants.

The first segment starred Denholm Elliott as a horror writer who has writer's block. So, for a change of scenery, they rent this house. Almost immediately Elliott's block vanishes and he works steadily on a tale about a serial killer. Amazingly, soon after his block vanishes he begins to actually see his fictional character! Again and again, the psychotic killer appears and then disappears--making it seem as if he is losing his mind. This might just be the best of the stories, as the nice twist ending makes the story come alive.

The second, while not bad at all, is probably the weakest. Peter Cushing plays a bachelor who is pining for a girl friend who died some time ago (though the picture of her looked amazingly contemporary). When he enters a chamber of horrors wax museum in town, he sees a wax figure that reminds him of his lost lady and he is both fascinated and scared by this. Later, a friend (Joss Ackland) visits and he, too, sees the figure and is entranced by it. This all leads to an ending that, frankly, was a bit of a letdown.

Christopher Lee then stars as an incredibly harsh and stern father to a pathetic little girl. During most of this segment, Lee seemed like an idiot, but in the end you can understand his demeanor. Though slow, this one ended very well.

The fourth segment was the silliest and was meant to parody the genre. Jon Pertwee (the third "Doctor" from the DR. WHO television series) is a very temperamental actor known for his portrayals of Dracula. However, nothing is right about the film according to him and in a fit of pique, he stomps off the set to find better props for this vampire film. It's actually pretty interesting that he played this role, as it seemed like a natural for Christopher Lee who played Dracula or other vampires a bazillion times (give or take a few). I enjoyed Pertwee's line when he basically said that Lee's and other recent incarnations of Dracula were all crap compared to Bela Lugosi's! Perhaps this is why Lee didn't take this part! Despite some very silly moments, it was very entertaining and fun--possibly as good or better than the first segment.

Considering that the film started and ended so well, had excellent acting and writing, it's hard not to like this film.@@@1 -The reasons to watch this knock off... err... tribute to a great movie called Se7en: - It's on while your channel surfing and there's nothing else on. - Someone pays you to watch it.

Do yourself a favor and pop in the DVD for Se7en, rent it, download it on iTunes, or put it in your Netflix cue and skip The Flock entirely. The Flock the same story with with a few changes. Furthermore the editing just wreaks of Se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. The worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots, with sounds of people people chattering over the radio, except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one.

Bottom line: I call it a blatant knock off. If you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film, go ahead, but either way go watch Se7en.@@@0 -No-nonsense Inspector Hollaway (a solid turn by John Bennett) investigates the disappearance of a famous thespian and uncovers the wicked past history of a creepy old house. First and most mundane tale, "Method for Murder" - Successful author Charles Hillyer (nicely played by Denholm Elliott) is haunted by images of the murderous fiend he's writing about in his latest book. Although this particular outing is too obvious and predictable to be anything special, it does nonetheless build to a real dilly of a genuine surprise ending. Second and most poignant anecdote, "Waxworks" - Lonely Philip Grayson (the always outstanding Peter Cushing) and his equally lonesome friend Neville Rogers (the splendid Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with the beguiling wax statue of a beautiful, but lethal murderess. Third and most chilling vignette, "Sweets to the Sweet" - Quiet, reserved and secretive widower John Reid (a typically terrific Christopher Lee in a rare semi-sympathetic role) hires nanny Ann Norton (the fine Nyree Dawn Porter) to take care of his seemingly cute and harmless daughter Jane (a remarkably spooky and unnerving performance by the adorable Chloe Franks). This stand-out scary episode is given a substantial disturbing boost by the exceptional acting from gifted child actress Franks, who projects a truly unsettling sense of serene evil lurking just underneath a deceptively sweet and innocent angelic veneer. Fourth and most amusing yarn, "The Cloak" - Pompous horror movie star Paul Henderson (delightfully essayed to the haughty hilt by Jon Pertwee) purchases a mysterious cloak that causes him to transform into a vampire whenever he wears it. This item makes for good silly fun and further benefits from the awesomely pulchritudinous presence of the luscious Ingrid Pitt as enticing vampiress Carla. Director Peter Duffell, working from a deliciously macabre and witty script by noted horror scribe Robert Bloch, maintains a snappy pace throughout and does an ace job of creating a suitably eerie atmosphere. Kudos are also in order for Ray Parslow's crisp cinematography and the shuddery score by Michael Dress. Highly recommended to fans of omnibus fright fare.@@@1 -first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and NOT an objective one as it should by giving this one, WELL DESERVED, star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(S) NAMES to increase the rating of something like this...

i do have a problem with such productions; yet another attempt (just like "untraceable") of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when IPS providers trying to "preferentiate" = CENSOR information, and the Americans and Canadians are fighting AGAINST that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net), but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. SEEMS LIKE FEAR PROMOTION IS HOLLYWOOD'S NORM THIS DAYS, especially when coming to thrillers which is the most "on demand" motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so = most viewed, best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and "ethical" people, that it gives a new much needed meaning to "anti-heroes" figures. make no mistake , this is NOT "DEXTER" which was meant to be high-quality entertainment.STOP SELLING "FEAR" please, the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it.

the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an Erroll Babbage that is CLEARLLY suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a "cliche" at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it, you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with Claire Danes's character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized, in my opinion that Erroll Babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him.how many people, that have seen or will see this movie, have never been "hold down"(regarding BOTH sexes) out of self, COMMON gratification!?.typically the movie gives an extreme CRIMINAL case(that unfortunately did, is and will likely happen again sometime , somewhere) BUT fingers everyone else indirectly as well as "you could become that", etc. anyone that is familiar with Sigmund Freud and Jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone "asses" , by such fanatical "hero" here. SAFE sex in its many forms IS healthy and not some evil that apparently Richard Gere character is obsessed with , on his way for some sexual "crusade". have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys!? or for how long an American teenager can see extreme violence on "pg-13" but he can not even see a woman breast until "R-18"!?!?( yet the industry targets them with this VERY SAME sexual perversions like "american pie" series for example).raise the kids tester-one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to UNhealthy EXTREMES!? all sexual activities(upon MUTUAL acceptance) integrates individuals better then some "rightous" nut-case, THAT blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on "the lives of others"( a new German movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject).here, like in that movie, you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been.

i am very disappointed with Richard Gere especially after the recent " hunting party", a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic "hero"( after real facts as well).but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone's political and social agenda. "the flock" and "untraceable" 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you, if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a WHOLE, as Erroll Babbage has those here, to stay clear of them for THEIR own safety.they would kill my family faster then any 0.00001 chances of Paul Jerrod in anyone's life would...

in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about MY "assesment" of this particular movie ( and "untraceable" actually), so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the "foot".))))for once i agree with the rating, this is not a feature for teenagers or kids; simply because at best would confuse them even more then the "common" belief of "money+fame+fashion" and how that relates to sexuality. "scream" series and movies as such AT LEAST have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another "trust me i know what is good for you" deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.@@@0 -I'll admit to being biased when I reviewed this since it was my introduction to the series. I saw this film for the first time in ~2005 on the late night "Fear Friday" on AMC, which often pulls obscure gems like this out of cold storage for new generations. I made it a point to watch the entire Amicus anthology series before reviewing any of them here to make sure I had perspective. Looking back, I still rate The House That Dripped Blood as my favorite, followed closely by Tales From The Crypt and then Asylum.

I think all of the elements that make this series charming---the vintage '60s/'70s style cinematography, creepy to kooky, far-fetched tales and the utter Britishness of it all right down the backing music----came together better here than any of the others overall. The movie centers around a very old English country house and the misfortune that befalls all that dwell within.

The first story involves a horror writer and his wife, who moved into this secluded place to get a break from the city so he could concentrate on his passion. He creates a murderous character called Dominic and soon starts experiencing great difficulty telling reality from fiction. There is a subtle physchedelia here via his torment that I found amusing yet creepy. Oh and those horrible prop teeth (then again these are British actors, maybe those were REAL!!!)

The second story is the tale of a lonely old man (Peter Cushing) that has moved here to escape his loneliness, yet it only worsens as he is haunted by lost love. He seems to have found possible salvation at a local (very creepy) wax museum, but it turns out he would have been much better off alone.......

The third story includes the great Christopher Lee (my fav British horror actor) as a single father with a rather disturbed and thoroughly creepy young daughter. He is constantly wary of her getting into things she shouldn't---like witchcraft! She has a natural talent for it, with good reason. Lee is superb here as the ice cold disciplinarian, that man has a true talent for playing characters that are absolutely devoid of warmth!! But despite his best efforts, the little troublemaker does in fact learn forbidden knowledge and bad things follow......

This final story is the tale of a cynical old veteran actor that feels the young director he's working with isn't qualified to capture a proper vampire film, right down to the quality of the costumes and his cloak in particular. So he goes to a old curiosity store in the middle of a foggy night to get something more "authentic". Little does he know that he picked up a truly authentic vampire's cloak! Putting it on at the stroke of midnight has rather noticeable effects. By the time I had gotten to this fourth and final story, it was after 3 am and I couldn't quite stay awake on the first try (not from boredom). But I did experience something that I have hundreds of times, a curious bonding experience I have with films or music when I drift in and out of sleep and the film/music becomes part of my dream!! Great fun!! This bizarre story was perfect for that and seemed much scarier the first time than it actually was because I woke up right when he was levitated by the cloak's power and couldn't quite comprehend was what happening at first. Not long after, the lovely Ingrid Pitt, a costar on his movie set, came to visit and he warned her not to put on the cloak at midnight---but he needn't have bothered, for she was a real vampire herself. The chintzy keyboard jingle that followed as she flew toward him on the staircase was simply hysterical!! And again in my half-asleep state, seemed rather confusing! Side Note: Make sure to catch Lee and Pitt along with the stunning Amicus star Britt Ekland in the all time classic film The Wicker Man (1973).

The weakest link here was the interlacing commentary between stories, but based on the stories themselves, this is a classic! Objectively, I would say the third story is best, but I like the 4th most because it makes me smile so much.Very highly recommended for horror fans and if you're a British horror fan, it's mandatory! I'd say it's worthwhile to view the series in chronological order if you can. The last film of this series, Monster Club (1980) is certainly the weakest. I think the first 3-4 films except for the at times mediocre Torture Garden (1967) are the best, but if you like any of them, you should watch them all at least once. You'll probably be back many more times to watch your favorites.@@@1 -A bad rip-off attempt on "Seven", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them "sex offenders", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.

No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.

The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.

Unlike "Seven", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about "sex offenders" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.

There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.

Don't waste time on this one.@@@0 -This movie is another horror anthology. It is rather good, but it could have used a bit more. I compare it to "Doctor Terror's House of Horrors", though in this one the title fits. It has four stories all somewhat connected by a house. The first tale is about a writer and his wife moving in. He creates a killer for his latest novel and then he starts seeing the killer roaming around in his house. This one is sort of predictable, but it does throw a few twists in the end. The next story is a bit more unpredictable, and you really do not know where the heck it is going. This one features Peter Cushing and was probably my favorite of the bunch. This guy buys the house, but it is not the house that takes center stage, but a rather strange wax museum. The third story starts out rather good and features Christopher Lee. This one has him as a rather bizarre dad who seems awfully protective of his daughter. The problem is that once you know what is going on the story does not end soon enough. It drags a bit leading to a very predictable conclusion. Then the final tale concerns an actor buying a cloak from an odd little shop. The actor really gets what he paid for. Then there is a small story about an officer who is seen throughout trying to find out what happened to this actor and then an explanation of why these things happened. Though I was not very satisfied with the explanation as I don't think it really explained Cushing's story much at all. I think they needed a bit more back story for that one. All in all though it was an interesting set of stories.@@@1 -The Flock is not really a movie. It's a wannabe movie, with wannabe actors. Not including Richard Gere, he gave an excellent performance, but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character, and the rest of the cast is just acting... the result is pathetic, just like this movie. You see, the idea of acting is to hide the fact that you're acting. What the hell was Claire Dains doing in this one?! She's the most inappropriate actress for this character. In 99.9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place, out of everything!! The only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions, like " do you really think so?? " , and making silly faces. I was embarrassed by her acting, seriously, and I used to like her... She's the romantic movie type, I don't know who picked her among all the actresses out there.... LOL, and seeing Avril Lavigne?! this really made me laugh.. Anyway.. If you want to get the feeling of throwing up, this movie will do the job for you!!! I wish I could vote -5..@@@0 -Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.

Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.

The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.

Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.

The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.

Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended.@@@1 -I just saw this film yesterday.

My girlfriend wanted to see it only because of Richard Gere.

I feel I wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it's the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor/actress is in it. I hope she learned the lesson because I had trouble keeping her in her seat. As of me, since I paid already, I wanted to see the end at least, just in the hope something good would turn up, but I didn't hold my breath, and luckily so cause I would have been a victim of the film just the same.

This is not a black and white film, it's a black and black one. The main character (Richard Gere) is almost as bad as his registrants, and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. Speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical US phobia.

Richard Gere's acting was good as usual but the blond girl that's supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. Totally unconvincing for the job.

The film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap, dramatic, and sensational turn that just is unreal. They just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders, vigilante beating, rape and torture - something that almost seems gratuitous. They even have a wolf attacking people in the film - how low can you get.

I gather the film won't come out in the USA and will go straight to DVD. That's were it should have stayed in other countries too, but because it's Hollywood and Richard Gere they just had to show it. Believe me, without Gere, the film is not even worth a B-series movie.@@@0 -Amicus made close to a good half dozen of these horror anthologies in the 70's, and this, from leading horror scribe Robert Bloch, is one of their best efforts. There are four stories, all worthwhile, but two -- "Sweets For The Sweet" and "Method For Murder" -- distinguish themselves as highly effective journeys into fear.

In "Sweets", Christopher Lee plays an impatient widower whose lovely daughter (Chloe Franks) becomes resentful of his neglect and brutish intolerance, so she sculpts a voodoo doll with which she expresses her distaste for his methods. Franks is a beautiful figure of mischievous evil and delivers one of the greatest child performances in a horror film since Martin Stephens in "The Innocents". This installment is directed with great subtlety and the final outrage, occurring off-screen, is a moment of purest horror.

"Method of Murder" is about a horror novelist (Denholm Elliott) who is menaced by one of his own creations, the creepy Dominic. This episode is striking for its simplicity and stark terror. Dominic may or may not be real, so director Peter Duffell has a great time playing with our expectations. The brief shots of Dominic reflected in a pond or seen as a fleeting phantasm in a meadow are truly haunting.

The original poster art, featuring a skeletal figure clasping a tray holding Peter Cushing's severed head, was a rich enticement for punters fixed on fear.@@@1 -I watched the movie "The Flock" because of the casting of Gere and Danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. This was one of the WORST movies I've seen in a long while (and I've seen some turkeys.) I've never posted online before but this movie was so awful I had to do so. I suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it's unbelievable. The story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it's nauseating. Poor Gere, he deserves so much better. As for the Gere/Danes on screen matchup, because of the horrible writing, one doesn't believe either character for a single minute. I'll bet Gere wishes he could buy back the negative, were such a thing possible. It's a shame to see talent wasted so badly, not to mention I wish I could get my 2 hours back. (I know what you're thinking. How do I really feel?)@@@0 -Linking story: another first-time viewing for me and, again, this is one of the most popular of the Amicus anthologies - and it's easy to see why, though I realize how the film's rather meaningless title could be misleading for some; I certainly fancied director Peter Duffell's choice - DEATH AND THE MAIDEN (which, incidentally, is a classical piece by Schubert that is heard in the film during the Peter Cushing episode) - a great deal more. Though the linking device itself is not all that great, the episodes are all equally compelling and enjoyable. Production values come off as very respectable indeed for the budget Duffell had to work with. The latter infuses the film with a great deal of style which is not so common with this type of film and, frankly, it makes one regret the fact that he wished to distance himself from the genre (though more so as not to be typecast rather than because he felt it was beneath him).

Now to the individual stories themselves:

"Method For Murder": the opening segment does not offer any real surprises but, to make up for this, it's quietly suspenseful and appropriately creepy at times (Tom Adams' 'fictitious' villain looking like the long-lost brother of Boris Karloff from THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932]); also, it ends with a satisfactory DIABOLIQUE-type twist, and features a fairly intense role for Denholm Elliott in the lead. That's all we need out of it, really.

"Waxworks": for the second story we are introduced to a curiously romantic mood which is quite unusual for this type of film; Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland are both excellent (as well as impeccably dressed) in their roles of two jilted lovers of a woman who continues to obsess them even after such a long time, and whose friendly rivalry can only lead them blindly and inexorably to a fate that is literally worse than death; an ominous hallucination scene with Peter Cushing is quite well done in view of the limited resources at hand, and Ackland's inexplicable inability - or unwillingness - to leave town somewhat recalls the house-trapped aristocrats of Bunuel's THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962).

"Sweets To The Sweet": this is perhaps the finest episode of all - with his ambiguous role here, Christopher Lee continues to demonstrate his versatility and he is matched by an understanding Nyree Dawn Porter and the deceptive innocence of Chloe Franks (who appears as Lee's daughter). The film's treatment of the occult here is both subtle and mature, culminating in a powerful and extremely chilling 'curtain'. Trivia Note: Chloe Franks appears as a grown-up in the featurette included on the disc, and when I saw her I felt an immediate familiarity with her face but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Later, on reading her filmography, it was revealed to me that she had played one of the leads in the long-running stage adaptation of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" in London's West End, which my brother and I were fortunate enough to catch while we there on holiday in the Summer of 2002! Needless to say, we had no idea then that she had once created such a delicate - and delicious - portrayal in sheer evil, mainly by virtue of her peculiar look and a devilish smile!!

"The Cloak": a wacky but oddly reverent vampire tale (that still manages to debunk many of the myths attached to the subgenre, while inventing some new ones!) which takes in some wonderful digs at exploitation cinema and, at one point, Christopher Lee himself!; Jon Pertwee is marvelous as the campy horror star who gets more than he bargained for when he attempts to bring a measure of authenticity to his work; Ingrid Pitt sends up her image nicely though her role is somewhat subsidiary to the proceedings; Geoffrey Bayldon (made up to look like Ernest Thesiger) also has a memorably quirky bit; the 'silent-cinema' style of the ending was a pretty audacious one to pull on an audience, I suppose - and, while some of the humor comes off as heavy-handed a' la THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967) or THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973), it's also rather infectious and certainly ends the film on a high (and highly unusual) note!

Video and audio quality are relatively satisfactory, considering I had no other version to compare it with; the main culprit is some noticeable print damage but this is never so nasty as to affect one's enjoyment of the film. As for the extras, beginning with the Audio Commentary: frankly, this is one of the finest chats about a genre film that I can remember listening to; Jonathan Rigby gets to butt in with his opinion more than is usual for a moderator but his effort certainly allows director Peter Duffell to touch on every aspect of the production (whereas with some other films, you're left rather expecting there to be more!) and, as such, it's an extremely pleasant track that complements the main feature very nicely indeed. The featurette "A-Rated Horror Film" is a worthwhile effort with Peter Duffell again at center-stage but this time backed up with valid, if all-too-brief, contributions from producer Max J. Rosenberg and stars Chloe Franks, Ingrid Pitt and Geoffrey Bayldon. We also get film notes, reviews, bios and a poster/stills gallery which, again, are wonderfully assembled (with the contemporary reviews being something of a novelty - and a welcome one at that).@@@1 -Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.

The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).

When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.

Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.

I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.

The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.@@@0 -From the mind of Robert Bloch, of "Psycho" fame, come four tales of twisty terror in this Amicus anthology film, which, while not quite as much fun, or scary, as I would have liked, still provides for some decent genre entertainment.

It's linked by the wrap-around story of a highly skeptical Scotland Yard detective (John Bennett) who is investigating the disappearance of a prominent actor; he's advised that this case is linked to a few others by the house in which they all took place, and our film is off and running.

"Method for Murder" has author Charles Hillyer (always delightful Denholm Elliott) haunted by his latest fictional creation, who has seemingly come to life. This sequence has some good surreal and fairly suspenseful moments, and is capped by a reasonably amusing revelation and denouement.

"Waxworks" stars horror icon Peter Cushing as retired stockbroker Philip Grayson, who, along with old friend Neville Rogers (Joss Ackland) becomes obsessed with the image of a beautiful woman found in a macabre wax museum. Most effective in this episode is the dream sequence, although it's great as always to watch Cushing. The final images presented to us in this story are pretty shocking.

"Sweets to the Sweet" features another well-loved horror star, Christopher Lee, as John Reid, who doesn't treat adorable moppet child Jane (Chloe Franks) with too much kindness, and it's up to new companion / tutor Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter) to find out why. The mystery of this particular episode is handled excellently; the film-makers wisely don't tip their hand so it comes as more of a genuine shock as we get the full truth of this unhappy family. The "dying" moments are particularly horrific.

"The Cloak" has the most outright comedy of the four; Jon Pertwee, one of many actors to have played the role of Dr. Who over the years, is a lot of fun as a vain, temperamental horror movie star (in fact, he's the highlight of this story) who, infuriated with the lack of quality in his latest low-budget film, goes out and buys his own cloak. Said cloak has strange powers, which I dare not reveal here. Sexy Ingrid Pitt is a welcome presence as Pertwees' companion; one wonderful example of the humor here is a knowing jab taken at none other than Christopher Lee!

The wrap-up story then concludes in a predictable but still effective way as Detective Inspector Holloway learns that he should have taken all of the warnings given him more seriously.

Underscored by Michael Dress's unusual, striking, and eerie score, "The House That Dripped Blood" is an entertaining mix of stories; while I don't enjoy it quite as much as, say, "Tales from the Crypt", it's still good fun. Capably directed by Peter Duffell, it moves slowly but surely towards each of its chilling conclusions, and is certainly a good film of its type.

7/10@@@1 -In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.

Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.

The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.

But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.

So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.@@@0 -THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.

I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.

I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.

The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.

The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.

The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.

The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.

The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.

The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.

The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.

I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.

Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it!@@@1 -it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.

Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?@@@0 -Given how corny these movies are, you gotta figure that they must have had fun making them. The movie focuses on a house that strangely accommodates whomever lives there. The inhabitants were: author Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott (with hair!)), who gets haunted by one of his own creations; Philip Grayson (Peter Cushing), who gets a little too close to a wax statue; John Reid (Christopher Lee), whose daughter's cuteness is apparently a facade; and actor Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee), on the verge of getting a little too much into character.

"The House That Dripped Blood" is actually worth seeing (well duh; it stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee). Aside from just being neat, there might be some undertones: it might be calling into question the issue of real horror vs. assumed horror. Like in "The Shining", we might ask whether the house/hotel itself holds some memory of past events. And if absolutely nothing else, Ingrid Pitt (as Paul's co-star) is HOT HOT HOT! Around the time that this came out, she also starred in "Countess Dracula" and "The Vampire Lovers" (also with Peter Cushing). Maybe she - like Barbara Steele - will remain known only as a scream queen, but mark my words: SHE IS A HOT SCREAM QUEEN! I'd like to see Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele co-star in something.

I guess that the only weird scene (so to speak) is where Denholm Elliott is wearing a pink shirt and fluffy jacket. You read that right. What kind of a name is "Denholm" anyway? Oh well. A very cool movie.@@@1 -I only lasted 15mins before self preservation jerked me out of the empty eyed drooling stupor that this film effortlessly induced and propelled me screaming back to the video shop armed for bear.

To say the film was bad would be a missed opportunity to use words interspersed with characters from the top keys on my keyboard (just to keep these comments clean).

One to be avoided.

@@@0 -Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography.@@@1 -This is really terrible.

The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.

I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.

There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.

I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.@@@0 -Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.

This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.@@@1 -Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!@@@0 -Four tales of terror regarding the events at a creepy old mansion are recounted to sceptical Scotland Yard investigator Holloway (John Bennett) as he investigates the whereabouts of the latest occupant of the house that dripped blood.

One can only struggle to find the words to describe the true brilliance that is ‘The House That Dripped Blood'. This Seventies horror anthology is quite remarkable in the way that such a visually innocent movie is capable of inducing horror in even the most discerning of viewers. Incredibly, the number of depictions of violence on-screen can be counted on one hand but the film is still able to portray brutality and succeeds in conjuring up the most horrific images in the viewers own imagination, all the while refraining from taking the obvious route of graphic violence. In a rare feature of early Seventies horror the technicalities of the movie are virtually flawless, from the faultless performances of the star-studded cast (featuring the legendary Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt) all the way to the superb direction and story telling courtesy of Peter Duffell and master of the macabre writer Robert Bloch (the author of the novel ‘Psycho'). The only real complaints that one may have with ‘The House That Dripped Blood' are the somewhat asinine plot-twists at the end of the first two segments and the predictable ending of the picture, but even these minor details fail to detract from the overall viewing enjoyment.

The first segment, entitled ‘Method for Murder', tells the story of Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott), a horror author who rents the creepy house while he works on his latest novel. While working on the novel, Hillyer continues to start seeing the murderous character from his story in and around the house and soon begins to question the difference between fiction and reality. Elliott's performance in this piece is truly exceptional and his character is given a surprising air of believability. The key to this segment, as with the others, is the mystery surrounding the events that take place. The viewer is made to question whether the sight of the murderous character of Dominic is merely a hallucination, a schizophrenic disorder or whether the character is actually there. Duffell's direction succeeds in creating an unsettling atmosphere coupled with a slow, methodical approach to engendering the tension and suspense required to make the segment greatly enthralling.

The following segment features Peter Cushing as the new occupant of the sinister house. During a trip into town he comes across a wax museum of horrors and decides to venture in. While there, he discovers a wax model of a beautiful woman that seems all too familiar to him. Cushing's character (Philip) is then joined by his friend Neville (Joss Ackland) who also wishes to visit the museum, much to the dismay of Philip. In this segment the viewer is given no more than very subtle clues as to the mystery of the wax woman but in general the viewer is left in the dark. There is far less tension to this particular story yet the segment still succeeds in maintaining its air of mystery through a particularly harrowing dream sequence and the general ambiguity of the story. Duffell's direction is once again exceptional and while this is quite possibly the weakest of the four stories, there is no denying that through some creative direction and credible acting ‘Waxworks' is still a delightful entry into the film.

‘Waxworks' is followed by what is, in my opinion, the greatest of the four segments – ‘Sweets to the Sweet'. Christopher Lee stars as John Reid, the father to a young girl who to begin with has an inexplicable fear of fire which is soon remedied by caring nanny Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter). However, John appears to be harbouring a dark secret about the family. ‘Sweets to the Sweet' is easily the most sober and intricate of the four stories and that is why the segment is undeniably compelling to the viewer. Throughout the segment small and subtle clues are released about the truth behind the family, but it is not until the immensely horrific final scene that everything slots neatly into place. This is the best example of how Duffell used dramatic tension and suspense to create the foreboding atmosphere that made the entire film great. Accompanied by a wonderfully arranged soundtrack, ‘Sweets to the Sweet' is an exercise in sustained fear that grabs the viewer by the throat and refuses to let go until the agonising screams that end this piece finally cease. Personally, I believe that this short segment would have made an entertaining and haunting feature length movie and I would give this segment a rare 10/10.

The film is ended with the story surrounding the missing performer that the investigator was originally interested in. Jon Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt star as two performers who are currently working on a horror movie. Pertwee's character is disgusted with the amateurish production and props of the film and so he purchases his own vampire cloak from a strange shop of mysteries. However, strange things begin to happen when he wears the cloak and soon he begins to fear the worst. This segment, which places the inspector amongst the events, is a nice way to wrap up a wonderful anthology. Although there is an irrefutable air of camp to the segment this is, in a way, what makes the story so enjoyable. Unfortunately, there is little in this segment that could be classed as frightening in any sense and the predictable ending could have been executed better but nonetheless the segment has its redeeming features. Horror buffs should definitely look out for Pertwee's brief comment on Bela Lugosi's and Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula. This slightly comical and light-hearted approach to the final segment is in essence an adequate and almost natural way of ending the picture even if it lets down the film when compared to the earlier examples of suspense-driven horror.

To sum up, ‘The House That Dripped Blood' is one of the greatest horror anthologies that features an incredible cast, great stories and above par direction. There are certainly worse ways to spend one hundred minutes of your life and while blood and guts fans will be highly disappointed, fans of more tense horror efforts should enjoy this film immensely. My rating for ‘The House That Dripped Blood' – 8/10.@@@1 -

A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.

I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.

He knows I am serious!

@@@0 -Horror omnibus films were popular in the seventies. I'm not very fond of them myself, but this one is an undeniably excellent slice of British horror cinema. The House That Dripped Blood is a horror omnibus, featuring four stories that surround a creepy old house in the country and are being told to a Scotland Yard officer by an estate agent.

This film is headlined by three well known stars of horror cinema; Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt, whom horror fans will recognise as one of Lee's co-stars in the greatest British horror film of all time; The Wicker Man.

The first segment of the film, titled "Method For Murder" tells the story of a horror storywriter, whose creation; a strangler named "Dominic" is brought to life by his own imagination. This story builds suspense very well; through his girlfriend, he, and the audience is lead to believe that what he is seeing is a figment of his imagination. This story certainly isn't very original, but it makes up for its lack of originality through the atmosphere it creates and it's final twist; which works incredibly well and came as a genuine surprise.

The second story, titled "Waxworks", stars Peter Cushing and is my least favourite of the four. This tale follows the story of Phillip Grayson (Cushing), a man that discovers a wax museum and decides to venture in. Inside, he discovers a woman that is familiar to him and who we later find out is a murderess. Quite what the woman's relationship with Phillip entailed is never really explained, but the tale relies more on the mystery to build the suspense rather than plot details. Cushing is later joined by his friend, Neville Rogers (played by Joss Ackland) and that's when the tale really starts to pick up. The setting of a waxwork museum full of murderers for a horror film isn't a new idea; the same setting was used to great effect in the excellent 1966 horror film, "Chamber of Horrors". Although the one here isn't as grand as the one in the aforementioned film, the power of the setting is used to no lesser a horrifying effect, much of which is achieved by a feeling of claustrophobia, brought about by the limited area of the museum. Peter Cushing is always interesting to watch, and seeing him avoid an axe-wielding madman is a treat for the horror fan. Despite being my least favourite, this story is still entertaining and interesting enough to not let this anthology down.

The film continues with "Sweets for the Sweet", which is without doubt the best of the omnibus. This story stars the legendary Christopher Lee as a seemingly overprotective father. The beauty of this story comes from the way it is played out. It leaves the audience guessing; we know that there is something wrong with either the father or the daughter, but we don't know who, or what, it is. Christopher Lee, as usual, portrays his character with a great degree of sinisterness; the audience is left to simmer over his actions regarding giving his daughter a doll, and the fact that she isn't allowed to go to school or have any toys. The card of exactly why is held close to the chest until right near the end, epitomised by the truly chilling line in which Lee tells his babysitter that he is, in fact, afraid of his daughter. The ending to this section is superbly played out, in my opinion it's one of the finest endings to any horror story ever told, and will stay with you long after the end credits roll.

The omnibus finishes with "The Cloak", which is definitely the most comedic of the four. This tale is about a hammy horror film star that, unimpressed by his latest film's technical side, goes out and buys himself a cloak. Naturally, this cloak turns out to be a real vampire cloak. Unlike the other three tales, this one seems to be played out mostly for laughs. That is no bad thing however as the majority of the humour is funny and it serves as a nice contrast to the rest of the film. The ending to this tale coincides nicely with the ending to the wraparound story of the film, which is a very sinister yet humorous ending to a very good film. Also, look out for the little jibe regarding Christopher Lee in Dracula. A nice touch, I think.

Overall, if you want a horror omnibus, you really cant go wrong with The House that Dripped Blood. The third tale alone makes the film worthy of your time and this is a very solid horror film indeed.@@@1 -You should know that I am the type of person that watches even the worst of movies to the finish, often out of sheer morbid curiosity. I even watched Leprechaun to the end before giving in to the temptation of tearing out my eyes and stamping on them. You should also know that this movie was in my VCR for less than half an hour before I made a frantic leap for the stop button and dashed back the rental store just to put as much distance between me and it as possible.@@@0 -GBS wrote his own screen adaptation of this Nobel Prize winning play but didn't live to see it produced (he had won an Oscar in 1938 for his brilliant adaptation of his 1914 play PYGMALION). When Otto Preminger mounted (produced and directed) this production in 1957, seven years after Shaw's death, he had noted British author Graham Greene do the adaptation and it was a solid choice.

Taking a cue from Shaw's own screenplay, Greene uses material from the stage Epilogue to create a framing device to meld the two acts of the play (one early and one late in Joan's story) into a unified and most satisfying whole. Where on stage the shift in tone is buffered with an intermission, here it works just as well with a return to KING Charles Balois's bedchamber (where the man Joan put on the throne is dreaming of the events which led to his current situation), and more material from Shaw's Epilogue - the introduction of the shade of John Gielgud's Warwick (the English "king maker").

The majority of the language is solid GBS, and the performances from stalwart Shauvians (like Felix Aymler's Inquisitor or Harry Andrews' de Stogumber) to relative newcomers (the film established Jean Seberg's career) are first rate. It may jar some, only familiar with Richard Widmark's many movie villains, to see him playing a frail and somewhat silly Dauphin, but the performance - oddly top billed - is professional, even if arguably miscast.

The symbolism of the opening credits and the director's choice to use the visual vocabulary of black and white filming all serve Shaw and the story well. Go in expecting quality entertainment and you won't be disappointed.@@@1 -This 'Movie' has to be the biggest pile of steaming C*^p I have ever

seen, What more can I say than BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. There is NOTHING to save this 'movie' and I pray that they NEVER even talk about making a sequel. If you are thinking about watching this then you should know that the storyline is that two garbage men get dragged into saving the earth. Movies like Men in Black has been torn to shreds and put back together to make this 'Comedy' but have TOTALLY failed. Please avoid this movie, (save yourself).@@@0 -This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.@@@1 -Words fail me. This film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight I really wish I hadn't done it. Although I attempted to sit through it until the end credits I have to admit I couldn't last for more than hour, so my opinion could be unfair. However, this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film-making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious.

Please do not watch any part of this film.@@@0 -Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that "Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was."

Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.

John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.

The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.

And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!

If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'.@@@1 -I watched this on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on, it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. I urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be, surely it was deliberate. I cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish, unrehearsed, badly executed way that it was beyond belief. This is the movie that makes Spiceworld look like Goodfellas, think I am exaggerating? Well give it airtime and think again. Dreadful, utterly dreadful. If this wasn't a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.@@@0 -Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.

As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.

And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.

Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.

It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.@@@1 -I may have seen worse films than this, but I if I have, I don't remember. Or possibly blocked them out. Who knows,if I was to undergo hypnotherapy, I may remember them, along, maybe, with been abducted by aliens as a child, or other traumas. If so, I would happily exchange those memories for the ones I have of watching this film.

I should give the film some credit: It did produce an emotional response. I actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and TV programs, that this travesty was dirtying them by association. I am terrified that I may be unable to watch films like Dr Strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.@@@0 -Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.@@@1 -If you really, truly want to waste two hours of your life, do the following:

1) Look through the TV listings. 2) Find the movie 'Men in White'. 3) When 'Men in White' comes on, sit and watch.

And that's it. After sitting through two hours of bad puns, dreadful (and not that funny) movie references, and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history, you will have wasted two hours of your life, and wonder exactly why.

Why did I do this? I was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. It wasn't.

But, on the other hand, if you're old enough to remember Power Rangers, you might spot some familiar faces during the film. Presumably to save on production costs, Saban (who also make Power Rangers), decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone's favourite tacky toy-spawning franchise throughout the film. I spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes I saw from when I was a kid, so I guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value.

But, if you want to see actual Power Rangers monsters, go watch Power Rangers itself. It's much better than this piece of garbage. (And that's saying something!)@@@0 -I'm a writer working at home and Diagnosis Murder is my lunchtime break companion - good, clean fun, good humour and nostalgia for the days of the Dick van Dyke show. How innocent we all were (and how innocent is Diagnosis Murder). I particularly enjoyed the episodes with other nostalgia figures like Joe Mannix. The bad guys always get caught, the good guys carry on. The stars clearly enjoy themselves and are having a ball without taking themselves too seriously.

One beef: why were so many of the villains women or at least bitches? Amanda was too dizzy. Its hard to imagine her really carrying out anything as gruesome as an autopsy.

I hope we haven't seen the last of Dick Van Dyke and family on our screens, esp. at lunchtimes!!@@@1 -Well, not yet, at least.

It's not listed in the worst 100...

So let's all team up, and put it in it's rightful place.

This is truly a bad movie. (And I liked Ishtar!) ;)@@@0 -Diagnosis Murder is one of the only programs i watch regularly on TV now. The way all of the main characters have something to do in each of the episodes makes it so unlike today's shows where they concentrate on 1 or 2 people per episode and everyone else is shoved to the side. The way mark's brain works is also so obscure that you never really know what he is thinking, and if you think you do, you are wrong.

Diagnosis Murder has tackled a diverse range of topics, not just in the cases but in each of the characters personal lives. Everything from racism and adoption, to terrorists and technology.

As for it being for old people? I am 24!! I don't think i can be classed as old yet.

I just want to know when they will be releasing all 8 seasons on DVD (not NTSC) so that i can watch them all in order. They seem to be doing it with lots of other programs from the same era so can they hurry it up a bit!@@@1 -If you see this turkey listed in your TV guide, AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A steaming great pile of fetid dingoes kidneys doesn't begin to describe how bad this movie is! There is only one funny scene (the memory eraser scene) but even that rates only .001 on the laughometer (out of 1000). Whoever wrote this turkey should be banned from writing another movie for their entire lives.@@@0 -I saw "El Mar" yesterday and thought it to be a great movie. It starts with a childhood episode in the life of the 3 main characters: Ramallo, Manuel Tur, and Francisca. After that we jump about 10 years to an hospital where the 3 friends meet again.

Religion, sickness, love, violence and sexuality rage throughout the movie creating and intense and tension-filled movie.

I see people complaining about the film being too gory and i think they missed the point of the story. It's a violent, intense and sad story. People are expected to suffer. To cry. To get hurt. To bleed. And i think that what the film shows, isn't done for pure shock-value or presented in a distasteful way. I know that some people like their films "clean", even those with violence in it. But sometimes, a movie needs to make you feel unconfortable to work. This is one of those movies. And a great movie it is.

The only fault i found was that there were 3 or 4 moments were some plot details weren't 100% clear, and only after thinking about them at the end of the movie, it all made sense. But it wasn't anything of much importance to the overall story, so i still give this movie a 9.@@@1 -You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.

I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."

It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.@@@0 -Old People Show???? I'm 15 and have been watching the show since I was 12, recoding it onto my Sky+ box everyday from Hallmark and BBC 1. I really wish they hadn't cancelled it, they didn't even get a proper farewell. But what an adventure, all those episodes, I think I've seen them all, and not one comes to mind that I didn't like and enjoy.

Its a shame the BBC keep swapping between Diagnoses Murder and 'Murder She Wrote'- Never watched it and don't intend to. Anyways, he characters in Diagnoses Murder are so in-depth, and the chemistry between the actors is amazing. It really was a sad day when they cancelled this show........@@@1 -I wished I'd taped MEN IN WHITE so I could watch it again

" What ? You mean you really enjoyed it Theo ? "

No I mean I could watch it again to see if it was as retarded , stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as I can remember it

A lot of people have claimed it was made for children . May I suggest it was also made by children ? because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time

The cast don't help but I genuinely started to feel sorry for them . Honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . To give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time BAYWATCH babe Donna D'Ericco disappeared from the narrative I waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later I forgot she was in the movie . Got that ? A star from BAYWATCH appears and seconds later you forget they're in the movie . This tells you all you need to know about the standard of MEN IN WHITE

Fair enough it's trying to be a live action cartoon similar to THE GOODIES ( Although THE DISMALS would be a better adjective for this movie ) , though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour , but considering this is a kids movie ( This didn't stop ITV broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway@@@0 -Diagnosis Murder has been shown on most Weekday afternoons on BBC1 since I used to watch it while ill from School a good 10 years ago - I know I shouldn't really enjoy it, in the same way I shouldn't enjoy 'Murder she Wrote' but I'm totally addicted to both and even have the DVD box-sets....OK I know that's sad!

Dick Van Dyke carries the show as he stars as Dr.Mark Sloan a Doctor at Community General Hospital in L.A who is also a Police consultant for the L.A.P.D. - his son Steve (Barry van Dyke - Dick's real life son) is a Police Officer, who needs his father's help on very many Suspicious deaths.

Along for the ride is Dr.Amanda Bentley (Victoria Bentley) the resident Pathologist at Community General and for the first couple of seasons you had Scott Baio playing Dr.Jack Stewart, who upped and left the series in 1995 hoping to go on to bigger and better things...he should have stayed where he was, he hasn't done anything of note since....and his only theatrical appearance for many years was in Baby Geniuses 2:Superbabies....Oh Dear!!!

anyhow Dr.Jack Stewart was replaced by the younger Dr.Jesse Travis played by Charlie Schlatter who stepped into Baio's shoes pretty comfortably.

The series is highly implausible but what Whodunit series isn't? (Murder she wrote - everywhere Jessica goes, someone ends up dead, or The underrated Father Dowling Mysteries about a Murder solving Priest with nun sidekick)

The series was much lighter up until 1997 this is because it had a supporting cast that included the bumbling Hospital Manager Norman Briggs played by Michael Tucci along with Nurse & Mark's secretary Dolores played by Delores Hall, After 1997 both these characters were no longer included and the series became a grittier affair with a bigger looking budget, some episodes included far more action, one episode the entire Hospital is blown up.

This was a family show For the Van Dyke's because as well as Dick's Son Barry, you also had Dick's Daughter And all his Grandchildren making an appearance in various episodes.

As the series went on it got a bit silly, one episode I remember Dick van Dike plays his entire family, which was a bit out of the ordinary, but on the Whole 'Diagnosis Murder' was a really good TV show which had numerous good Guest Stars.

Since this show finished in 2001, Dick & Barry have appeared together again in the 'MURDER 101' series of TV Movies made by The Hallmark Channel, pretty much following the same path, and still enjoyable. Dick who's now in his mid 80's doesn't seem to change a great deal, and looks as if he'll be working till the bitter end.

TV SHOW **** OUT OF *****@@@1 -This film is so bad, it made me want to vomit. Poorly produced, a complete laugh free zone. Why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands? The sets are laughable, the effects so bad that they aren't even laughable, and the acting farcical. It is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. National Lampoon once made Animal House, which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. Now they've been relegated to making TV movies like this lump of ****. Name your expletive, and it could be accurately used to describe this film.@@@0 -This, like Murder She Wrote, is one of those shows, that after a stressful day at school, I sit down in front of the TV, and watch. Why? Because I genuinely enjoy it, and it's a shame it's not on the air anymore. Dick Van Dyke is amazing as Dr Mark Sloan, a doctor-turned-detective, who with his son, solves murders. He is joined by a largely unknown but very competent supporting cast, namely his real-life son, Barry Van Dyke. Victoria Rowell is also good, but I noticed that every series her hairstyle changes. i also liked Scott Baio and Charlie Schlatter, but I particularly loved Michael Tucci as Norman, and was puzzled how he suddenly disappeared. This show is so entertaining,with great guest stars, it's a bit obvious at times, like Colombo, but in every episode, there is always something to chuckle about. In conclusion, a great series, with two thumbs up and a 10/10. Bethany Cox@@@1 -Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!@@@0 -What network was , Diagnosis Murder on? I thought it was CBS. Am I right or?? Also, Back in those days, the actual production H.Q. was near about the Van Nuys Airport. I surely remember, because I practically made nearly two episodes in those daze. More. I remember the early days. I had found an article in Reader's Digest giving this actor/writer a clue to a terrific episode. So just for suggesting it I was awarded. Awarded or not, I sadly didn't develop it, and was cut out of it all due to poor publicity of mine. So as a justification I learned as I always have, the hard way... Roll the dice..Craps!!! Just a side bar on Mr. Van Dyke. He had a house in the Brentwood area on Chalon Road and it was an incredible party house. Dick had a terrific sense of modernism when he built that house.@@@1 -I won't spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. I just want to add it because all the comments were so positive I felt like I just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled, let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. Some scenes seemed promising, playing with visual dimensions, but couldn't hold up the rest. I felt like I was stoned for the first time again, having semi-philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents.

What a futile attempt to raise Dutch cinema to new heights. I'd rather watch Jesus is een Palestijn, without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor, also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves.

Gert de Graff is not Jean-Luc Godard or Tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.@@@0 -I love this show as it action packed with adventure, love and intrigue. Well some times love! It's so good see a show where all the characters work well together and they treat each other with respect. It's also very good to se Dick Van Dyke in a television role as I have only seen him in Mary Poppins. the mixture of the main characters, Mark, Amanda, Jesse and Steve is very capturing to the audience. This is a show you have to watch!@@@1 -From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.@@@0 -Thankfully as a student I have been able to watch "Diagnosis Murder" for a number of years now. It is basically about a doctor who solves murders with the help of his LAPD son, a young doctor and a pathologist. DM provided 8 seasons of exceptional entertainment. What made it different from the many other cop shows and worth watching many times over was its cast and quality of writing. The main cast gave good performances and Dick Van Dyke's entertainer roots shone through with the use of magic, dance and humor. The best aspects of DM was the fast pace, witty scripts and of course the toe tapping score. Sadly it has been unfairly compared to "Murder, She Wrote". DM is far superior boasting more difficult mysteries to solve and more variety. Now it is gone TV is a worse place. Gone are the days of feelgood, family friendly cop shows. Now there is just depressing 'gritty' ones.@@@1 -I don't think you can get much worse then this. Put together bad actors, fake limbs, and three stupid stories and what do you get? This B-rate pointless excuse for a movie.

The first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic, especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. Plus, the man is OK, but the woman is rather ugly. "You look great!" NOT! The werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three I'd say, but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. The face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie.

The more stories you go through the worse it gets. There are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. The whole "I want to be a werewolf, too" "How could you do this to me?!" Was silly to say. You asked for it now get over it! The werewolf will not even be spoken of...its a rat!

The third one has no point...almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still didn't make it interesting. Boring!

Music, Yes, bad...who couldn't even hear some parts it was stupid. Animals effects were either rat or pig-like which was stupid. They couldn't use lion sounds? Guess not, GOOD movies use that. Well, i =f you enjoy B-rates this is good for you. I got this movie since I'm a hardcore werewolf fan and i'll buy ANY werewolf movie and watch it more then once, but thats just me. If you prefer Good ones, don't waste your money. I beg YOU!@@@0 -The tighter the drama, the better the film of sister rivalry! This little gem was mainly promoted as a comedy upon its release in Sweden, so I'm glad to find that wasn't the whole case. Funny bits on small-town bickering are there to enjoy, surely, but the drama takes center stage, as the story progresses. And not just family drama, it also raises poignant questions on respecting differences of peoples' lifestyle choices.

Great character ensemble with many superb and moving dramatic scenes that score credibility points; and they're not just scattershot, but hold everything in place. It just makes me assume that if Ingmar Bergman had made this (the drama would suit him!), the international attention probably would have been immediate.

7 out of 10 from Ozjeppe.@@@1 -It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.

People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- "Rage of the Werewolf", "Werewolf Tales" and so on.

"Blood of the Werewolf" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, "Blood Reunion", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.

The second story, "Old Blood", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.

And finally we have "Manbeast", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the "twist" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself?@@@0 -The movie takes place in a little Swedish town where everybody knows each other. Here Mia visits her parent for the birthday of her father, a which occasionally always have some kind of tragedy, the question is just what will it be this year, and you will be surprised... It is an extremely well composed movie, with a story which has a perfect balance of humor and seriousness, which is rarely seen. You get happy, you get hurt, and basically everything in between. Finally you can't help falling in love with Mia(if you are a boy I guess(the main actress)) She is an extremely well chosen actress, as a lot of the other actors/actresses.

Enjoy@@@1 -Really bad shot on video "film" made by not one, not two, but three amateur video makers.

If you're going to make a bad horror film at least throw in some blood, gore and nudity. There is some blood provided by latex cut off arm props bought at a Halloween store. There are lesbians and hookers but no nudity or sex. The lesbians spend a lot of time in bed but only talking.

There seems to be no editing effects- fades, wipes etc. Once in a while a bit of black appears to separate scenes.

Terrible music by bad heavy metal bands whose websites take up the majority of the end credits.The werewolves are represented by rubber masks that are attached to just the "actors" face. They didn't even bother to apply brown makeup to their necks, arms or wrists.

I guarantee a 10 year old with a video camera could put together a better movie.No reason at all to buy, rent or watch this film except as an example of how not to make a low budget video.@@@0 -This is the best movie I've ever seen!

Maybe it's because I live just a few miles from the village were the story take place, and I know how things work out in this area in Sweden. The movie tells the truth, believe me! It both criticizes and honors the lifestyle of Dalarna, and the producer wants people who watch the movie to be more opened minded and care more for your closest friends and relatives.

But if you live in another small village anywhere in Sweden (or another country) you will probably also recognize much from this movie.

Thank you Maria Blom!@@@1 -What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.@@@0 -I saw this at the Mill Valley Film Festival. Hard to believe this is Ms. Blom's directorial debut, it is beautifully paced and performed. Large cast of characters could be out of an Anne Tyler novel, i.e. they are layered with back story and potential futures, there are no false notes, surprising bursts of humor amidst self-inflicted anxiety and very real if not earth-shattering dilemmas. If you saw "The Best of Youth," you will recognize how well drawn the characters are through small moments, even as the story moves briskly along. I really hope this gets distribution in the USA. I live in a fairly sophisticated film market, yet we rarely get Swedish films of any kind.@@@1 -I'm a big fan of Westerns but this one.... whew, what a stinker! I think what turned me off almost right off the bat was the inane dialog. I think I could have written better dialog than this when I was in eighth grade. And the poor actors! Given this terrible dialog, none of them came across looking anything but ridiculous. Really, I'm not kidding. Some of this is little better than what you'd get in an Ed Wood film.

The biggest tragedy is Sterling Hayden. He was probably THE "big" star in this movie which if you called it a B-Western, you'd be lavishing praise upon it. This is what should be called a B-minus Western perhaps. Pity Sterling Hayden, who appeared at other times along with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, and other major talents. For him to appear in a vehicle this poor must have been something he tried to downplay for the rest of his life.

One annoying thing about this movie is all the men look like they haven't shaved in a week and their faces are all greasy. I know in the old West guys weren't always well groomed but to a man this is a movie that makes you want to just go 'EWWWW!' Really, this is a crummy Western. Denver Pyle also had to live this one down, especially after appearances in so many great Westerns. Bad, bad movie.@@@0 -This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.

This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.@@@1 -"Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that." - Lucius Shepard

"The Color Purple" takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif – innocence interrupted by men – permeates the entire film.

The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.

All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that "The Color Purple" made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.

The film is often said to deal which "racism", "sexism" and "black culture", but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.

Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs.

This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from "Gone With The Wind", MGM Muscals, "Song of the South", Warner Cartoons, "Halleluha!" and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.

Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.

Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a "Home Alone" movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously "white" music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.

Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.

And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture.

3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering "The Color Purple" worthless.@@@0 -This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.

Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.

One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.

The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.

Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.@@@1 -being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward watch...@@@0 -Just saw this movie today at the Seattle International Film Festival, and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Great writing and direction, excellent and believable interaction among the cast, and great comic timing as well.

This movie touches on themes that are universal-family and separation. As a result, I can see European, Asian, and American audiences all finding points of similarity between this film and their own lives.

If all that wasn't enough, this has the potential to be the best underground date movie of the year...somebody distribute this in the USA, please!

Finally: thank you Maria Flom! It really is a great film.@@@1 -I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.

The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.

Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis.@@@0 -well done giving the perspective of the other side fraulein doktor captures both the cost and the futility of war. excellent acting especially when german high command refuses in the name of chivalry to present medal kaiser ordered struck. the scenes of carnage are probably too intense for effete US minds who'd probably prefer some silly speeches and senseless abstractions like 14 points or the league of nations. real americans might appreciate the story line and the action. for all the action and intrigue, fraulein doktor compares favo(u)rably to Jacob's Ladder.@@@1 -was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-)@@@0 -I remember seeing this film years ago on, I think, BBC2. I would very much like to view it again - does anyone know how I can obtain a copy? As I remember, it was an especially powerful movie, in particular the scene that stands out is of the horses wearing gas masks. Apart from that I really can't recall too much about the story - which is why I want to view it again! I have trawled the web but am unable to find a copy, which is unusual in my experience - perhaps there is no DVD or VHS of this film on the market. Would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Thanks very much in advance for your assistance. Best regards, Albany234@googlemail.com@@@1 -I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10@@@0 -This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style. From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed. It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield. Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue. I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS. I still have the tape and enjoy watching it again from time to time.@@@1 -I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.

This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.

2/10@@@0 -Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape.@@@1 -First of all, I'd like to say that I love the "Ladies' Man" sketch on SNL. I always laugh out loud at Tim Meadows' portrayal of Leon Phelps. However, there is a difference between an 8-minute sketch and a feature-length movie. Watching Leon doing his show and making obscene comments to his listeners and coming up with all sorts of segments for his show, like "The Ladies Man Presents..." which is reminiscent of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents..." is absolutely hilarious. There's a great episode where Cameron Diaz role-plays Monica Lewinski, and Leon plays Bill and they call it "The Oral Office." See, that's funny!!!

In the movie, we don't see Leon on the show too often. In fact, he gets kicked out of almost every radio station in the country. And the plot revolves around his quest for true love, involving a mystery letter that got dropped off at his houseboat, signed by "Sweet Thing." Karyn Parsons, who is famous for playing Hillary on "Fresh Prince of Bel Air," works with him on the show and has a secret crush on Leon. The movie just piles on one boring subplot after another. And the gags are boring as well. The first time we see Leon mention the word "wang" it's pretty funny. When he uses it over and over again, supposedly trying to get a laugh, the joke has run dry. Most of the jokes he uses in the film are jokes we heard before, and done better, on the SNL sketch and played out tediously for a whole hour and twenty-five minutes. They even try to insert a musical number by Will Ferrell and his gang of Ladies' Man haters, who all want to destroy him because their wives had an affair with him, to bring some life into this witless comedy. Ferrell has some funny moments, and tries to make the best out of an otherwise unfunny role. Ferrell just has that unique comic talent, and he's funny at almost anything he does. Even Julianne Moore gets a cameo. Watching her, you can't but wonder "What the hell is an Oscar-winning actress doing in this movie??!!!!" Her name wasn't mentioned in the opening credits--probably by her consent. And of course a movie of this theme has to include the Master of Love himself, Billy Dee Williams. Billy Dee is charismatic as always, but even he can't breathe enough life into this film. I also have to add that the soundtrack is full of soft R & B hits, which impairs the film even more, giving it a horribly downbeat tone--as if the script isn't boring enough. I mean, this is "supposed" to be a comedy. The soundtrack would've been appropriate for something like "Love Jones."

"The Ladies Man" only has sporadic laughs. There are exceptions in which SNL can produce a great movie out of a short sketch. Watch both of the "Wayne's World" movies, and you'll see how it's done. But this movie, just like adapting Mary Catherine Gallagher's character to screen in "Superstar," shows the flip side. Some sketches are meant to be remembered on SNL, and not on the silver screen.

My score: 3 (out of 10)@@@0 -I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest.@@@1 -I rented this movie for a few laughs. I had never seen the SNL skit, but with hits like Tommy Boy, and Waynes World, it couldn't have been that bad, could it? The answer: it was. This movie hardly was a means of relaxing after a hard day at work. I just kept waiting for a plotline and a funny part, but there wasn't any. The highlight was tiffany amber thieson, and thats just about it.@@@0 -Like almost everyone else who has commented on this movie, I can only wonder why this has never appeared on video.

I recall seeing it at about age 12 on the "The Late Show," circa 1972. I too recall the poison gas attack and the weirdly garbed horses. (I don't recall the more horrific bits I've seen described here; they were likely cut out for the TV audience.) But the scenes I REALLY liked were the ones involving the death of Lord Kitchener aboard the HMS Hampshire, almost exactly 90 years ago. The scenes of the doomed cruiser approaching the minefield in the storm were really chilling, as I recall.

Don't recall the musical score, but the comments of the others now have me curious. Get this one out on video!@@@1 -I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.

I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.

The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.

Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.

By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.

@@@0 -Luckily, not knowing anything about this movie I was curious enough to tape it from TV. And then the tape ran out just five minutes before the ending!

But I'm glad I managed to get most of it because this is a really great spy movie. There are the usual toy submarines and a bit foggy plots, but also very chilling and even daring moments. Considering the production year 1969, the certain slight lesbian overtones must have raised a few eyebrows. Of course now it doesn't surprise anyone and those scenes in fact seem pretty beautifully done. And it's not just because of the two George's actresses.

The gas attack seems to hit every viewer very strongly, no wonder, And it certainly did hit me. Very effective. Also the viewpoints from the both sides of the opponents gives the whole story more deepness along the usual suspense and action. This is not just a heroic war tale of one victorious side, but shows what lies behind the victory in good and bad. Well, being a case of war, mostly bad.

For the fans of composer Ennio Morricone this is also a must. His work is always excellent, touching but never over the top. And I think I have to try to catch more movies with Suzy Kendall. Talk about Fräulein! Let's hope they get this on DVD soon, so I can have the entire movie in my collection and more people will become familiar with this very little known gem.@@@1 -Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.

You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.

I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.

Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen.@@@0 -There are movies, and there are films. Movies are more often than not merely cinematic "candy," whereas films are true works of art. Fraulein Doktor is certainly well-placed in the latter. As most viewers, I was highly impressed with the battle scenes, but the poignancy of the portrayal of the central character is what I consider to be the most sterling quality of the film. Having done everything possible to serve her country as a true daughter of Deutschland, all the while in the throes of morphine addiction, die Fraulein is treated very shabbily by the German high command despite all of her efforts. The scene in which the Doktor is being conveyed in the rear seat of a Mercedes Benz command auto, alone, desolate, and sobbing is perhaps one of the saddest yet truest depictions of a "spy's" lot in life. Only the emotional pain presented by Richard Burton in the Spy Who Came in from the Cold comes close. Fraulein Doktor is a far deeper film than one may realize upon a singular viewing. I only wish that its producers would see fit to release it on DVD so that those who have never experienced it can, and those who have seen it can again (perhaps again and again)enjoy this exceptional motion picture.@@@1 -While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.@@@0 -"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.

We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.

When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.

Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.

"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer.@@@1 -Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy.@@@0 -Fräulein Doktor is as good a demonstration as any of how the once great film industry in Western Europe has declined in the past 40 years. Then, in the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy,France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline. There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime)and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan. And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor. With its big budget for the time, and the world talent involved, Fräulein Doktor was good enough that viewers still remember the movie decades later.

Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, has a line in Fräulein Doktor where he tells a caught spy to either talk or he will play the Wall Game. The wall being opposite a firing squad, with little chance of the spy winning the game. That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders, in the Vietnam War era of 1969.

The steamy scenes between Suzy Kendall and Capucine probably did not damage these performers' chances at getting parts in Hollywood movies, Hollywood studios were in the process of shedding their overseas distribution and production businesses. Fox would no longer co-produce films like The Sicilian Clan, Columbia wouldn't distribute films like Belmondo's The Night Caller. MGM went even further, cutting almost all film production, selling its chain of theaters in India for the value of the land underneath and unloading its Borehamwood studio facilty as Kerkorian looted the studio to raise money for building his casino in Las Vegas (where a Bally casino gift shop sold MGM memorabilia at giveaway prices, stuff left over from the auction of MGM's prop warehouses).

Paramount distributed Fräulein Doktor, but Gulf and Western's Charles Bludhorn, who had taken over the company and canned the studio's aged Board of Directors, unloaded the studio's film library to Universal (as I recall) and really became interested in movies after production chief Robert Evans started turning out one hit after another. But that was in the 70s. Fräulein Doktor with its lesbian scene was buried, with cut versions of the movie showing up on local stations through the 80s.

Kenneth More was usually typecast as a bumbling guy when he was older, especially in the BBC detective series Father Brown. When he was younger, as in the British movie Titanic, he played his standard reserved British officer. In Fräulein Doktor, he had a chance to be a lot tougher than usual, as I recall. It would be nice to see if my memory of this movie is accurate, about his role and, of course, those cavalry horses wearing gas masks and protective covers riding into battle. That was some scene, and Alberto Lattuada showed he was some director, helming this World War I espionage movie, where the money spent on production values really shows up on the screen.@@@1 -I honestly don't understand how tripe like this gets made. The worst junior-high talent show skit you've ever seen is more entertaining than this film. Will Ferrell's wrestling fetish provides the only (briefly) humorous moments. Utterly horrible.@@@0 -It seems more than passing strange that such utter dreck as "Dukes of Hazzard" and "The Hills Have Eyes" (the new version) can find DVD distributors while older - and far superior works such as this film - are nowhere to be found. With all the on-going debate about the morality (or lack thereof) of warfare, and interest in espionage (consider the multiple Jack Ryan, Bourne, XXX, and "Mission: Impossible" productions, this would seem to be an obvious choice for release on DVD. True, it LOOKS like a 1968 motion picture because it IS a 1968 motion picture. But style consideration aside, this is still a production that actually has something valuable to say, and has plenty of plots twists to keep an audience entertained. If nothing else, will SOMEBODY please consider getting the soundtrack onto some kind of CD, whether it be a compilation with other Morricone music or as a stand-alone. I don't know if industry people bother to read what we fans have to say about their products, but if you are reading this and other comments, please take us seriously. We are paying for your lavish homes with our hard-earned dollars spent on tickets, DVDs and CDs - give us what we want! All that said, if you are reading this and have not seen this film, lobby for it's release so you may see what those of us who have seen it are talking about. You will not be disappointed.@@@1 -The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.

Rating: 6/10@@@0 -I saw this film by chance on the small box. It has a fantastic and chilling scene about poisonous gas. A lot about fanatical patriotism. A bit of eroticism. I can't believe it's still waiting for 5 votes!!@@@1 -This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!@@@0 -I havent seen that movie in 20 or more years but I remember the attack scene with the horses wearing gas-masks vividly, this scene ranks way up there with the best of them including the beach scene on Saving private Ryan, I recommend it strongly.@@@1 -This movie really deserves the MST3K treatment. A pseudo-ancient fantasy hack-n-slash tale featuring twin barbarian brothers with a collective IQ of hot water, character names that seem to have been derived from a Mad Libs book, and such classic lines as "Hold her down and uncover her belly!", The Barbarians crosses over into the "so bad, it's good" territory.@@@0 -I saw this at the theater in the early 1970's. The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time. The Germans and their horses are covered from head to toe (or hoof) with eerie protective suits. The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers. The gas clouds move ever closer, finally enveloping the British defenders. The Germans move forward slowly menacingly in their scary looking garb. Suddenly a scream from the defenders... This gas is like no other that they have experienced before....

Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too!@@@1 -Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir!@@@0 -After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.@@@1 -When I decided to watch THE BARBARIANS, starring those twin bodybuilders, Peter and David Paul, I thought it couldn't be that bad because the film was directed by Ruggero Deodato, who has a reputation for creating sleazy movies but well made sleazy movies. Well, THE BARBARIANS is remarkably trashy action/adventure movie that wants to be another CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and fails at every level. The look of the film is all wrong. Some scenes were well shot but the tone and the schintzy, tacky "disco" look of the clothes and hair people are adorned with just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, even for a low budget flick like this one.

Richard Lynch looks like an old woman with that ridiculous hairdo and costume. He's supposed to be menacing but he comes across as a buffoon. And it's funny to see Eva LaRue Callahan, one of the stars of ALL MY CHILDREN, appear in her first movie, walking around in skimpy fur bikini. I'm sure she wants this dreck to disappear from the face of the earth! The so-called Barbarian twins are okay as the muscle bound heroes but it's almost impossible to construct a proper critique of their acting because their roles are, like everything else in this mess, really ill-conceived. The only way the film tries to differentiate one twin from the other is by having one twin wear a loincloth that covers his ass, while the other twin's loincloth barely covers his muscular butt. I'm not kidding! Don't ask me who's who though.

Deodato must have been really desperate to agree to make this film. And his desperation is reflected perfectly in this trashy flick. It's just bad.@@@0 -Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.

To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre"). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.

I only wish I had taped the film.@@@1 -I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.

I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me "acting lessons" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).

David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information.

I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had "acting" in it.@@@0 -Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !@@@1 -The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible.

The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie.@@@0 -Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !@@@1 -This was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. The plot is awful, and the acting is worse. The jokes that are attempted absolutley suck. Don't bother to waste your time on a dumb movie such as this. And if for some reason that you do want to see this movie, don't watch it with your parents.@@@0 -This particular episode of Smallville is probably the best episode to air since reunion. This is for many reasons. For example, it takes the series back to some of it's roots. It welcomes back Lionel from a supposedly long absence, with the Luthorcorp plaza office in Metropolis. This room hasn't been in smallville for a very long time, and seeing it again brings back many memories from the smallville's past. Not to mention, Lionels conversations with Lex are always admirable.

Another pleasant return is, well uv guessed it, is Bart Allen(aka Impulse), AC(aka Aquaman) and Victor Stone(aka Cyborg). Not only does Steven Deknight reunite the former justice leaguers, he blends them in with the Smallville formula in such a unique way, that it almost feels like it is a feature length movie.

From there you get the basic story, Green Arrow forms the league, attempts to blow up 33.1, Bart gets captured, Clark saves him, and the facility is blown to kingdom com. All is good and graceful, with a good mix of stealth, action, pace and suspense. Oh, and Cyborg has some cool new upgrades true to the justice league character :).

The music is probably what makes this episode work so well. If you remember correctly, the first episode Steven Deknight directed was Agless from Season 4. This was a mediocre episode, but something felt out of place. maybe it was the music, or the acting, or the fact clark sais at the end "we didn't find you, you found us", kind of made people lose faith in the formula. But thankfully Steve Deknight redeemed himself in this Justice episode.

I had a few quivvles about Justice that made it fall short of the full 10. First of all, the far too cheesy exit of the justice league from the Ridge facility expolsion. I mean it would have been soo much cooler if say Green Arrow and Cyborg took off on Oliver's bike (rememeber from the arrow episode). Clark and Impulse should have obviously ran, and aquaman should have swam via another route. But that was soo incredibly cheesy, it nocked off 2 points from the full 10.

Secondly, another cheesy moment, not as bad as the first, but when Green Arrow sais "let's go save the world". That made me cringe. All in all, judging by the acting performances, music, direction and production values, the pros do outweigh the cons, and this is still one of the best episodes in smallville history, and maybe the 2nd best episode in season 6.

7 Out of 10...@@@1 -This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.

And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.

No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.

I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that.@@@0 -EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.

A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.

We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.

The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.

Grady Harp@@@1 -This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive.@@@0 -This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any "rewind" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.

In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit.@@@1 -This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.@@@0 -I really enjoyed this episode. Seeing The Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Aquaman (even though all he did was swim) made my eyes widen. To see most of the founders of the Justice League trying to bring down Lex Luthor is what i've been waiting for. This sounds a bit off topic, but making a live action Justice League show would definitely make me have a reason to shove everything that i usually do during the week down the drain just to watch one episode. This is the thrill i got from watching this episode. I wish they had made this episode a little longer, like a two hour special, because i felt that one hour of the Justice League wasn't enough. Now before i bore you (unless i already have with my rambling) i just want to say, Smallville is cool again. It sort of lost its touch when the show started focusing on Lana. But i'm sure the writers will just fall back into that loop hole. :( So enjoy this episode. Who knows when another good one's going to come out. Catch it again this Thursday, Feb. 22, if you missed the first airing.@@@1 -Whoever gave this movie rave reviews needs to see more movies.

A loser takes his camera and photographs his mental family. The movie is filled with idiots and includes live "teabagging". That should sum it all up for you.

Do not waste your time. You may want to watch the entire movie in the hopes that it gets better as it goes on - it doesn't!@@@0 -Show favorites Green Arrow (introduced this season), Aquaman (introduced in Season 5), "Impulse" (Season 4), and Cyborg (Season 5) all come together, along with Clark, to stop one of Lex's evil plans in this thrilling mid-season episode.

Through his sophisticated technology, Green Arrow learns that Lex Luthor is constructing laboratories across the world that hold people induced by the meteor substance kryptonite and people with abilities to run tests on. Green Arrow over the past months has allied Arthur Curry (Aqua), Bart Allen (Impulse) and Victor Stone (Cyborg) to stop Lex and destroy these facilities. After recruiting Clark to help, the team puts on quite a show in interrogating and destroying a local laboratory.

This episode is incredible. Full of action, humor, and fabulous dialog, it feels more like a movie. It is full of entertainment and provides as a springboard for the most interesting storyline of the sixth season.@@@1 -The only saving grace of this movie is that it serves as the 0 end of the movie rating scale. Now if I see a movie that really stinks I say this movie was a real Pecker. I believe this movie is a perfect example of Christina Ricci's one dimensional acting. Horrible@@@0 -I loved this episode. It is so great that all 5 of them team up and stop LutherCorp and save the world. I also love this episode because Kyle Gallner (Bart Allen/Impulse) and Justin Hartley (Oliver Queen/Green Arrow) are guest starring in it!!! I just hope that Clark will join the Justice League and we'll get to follow this group of heroes across the globe!! =)It was really exciting and keeps viewers interested because of what will happen next. I think Chloe should also join the team as Watchtower, that would be such a coool thing for her to do besides the Daily Planet because she doesn't have super powers. Also, I want to find out what types of subjects Lex is going to use for 33.1, I wonder what other types of powers other people in the world have!!!@@@1 -I saw this movie at Sundance 2005 and was stunned at how bad it was, although based on the catalog description I was excited to see it. Supposedly a "mockumentary" of two high school students making a documentary of high school life, it featured bad acting, bad directing, completely lack of engaging characters as written, and all-around is a total bust. I love good movies about high school, and this is not one of them. The characters are one-dimensional and self-consciously "cool" although they are supposed to be outcasts. You get the overall impression of a bunch of people sitting around making an on-purposely-bad movie to show their friends, yet somehow it got into Sundance. Mystifying.@@@0 -Chloe is mysteriously saved from Dr. Caselli, the corrupt doctor responsible for transferring patients with abilities from Belle Reve to Project 33.1, and a fraction of second later Clark arrives. He finds that Bart Allan has returned to Smallville and they meet each other in Kent Farm. When Bart is captured by Lex during a break-in in a LuthorCorp's facility, Clark discovers that the Green Arrow had also hired Bart (a.k.a. Impulse), Arthur Curry (Aquaman) and Victor Stone (Cyborg) to investigate the Project 33.1. Clark accepts to join the trio to save Bart and invites Chloe to participate of their mission.

"Justice" is the best episode so far of this 6th Season. In this episode, the Justice League begins its saga with the association of five heroes: Clark, Green Arrow, The Flash ("Impulse"), Aquaman and Cyborg. The participation of Chloe is spectacular, completing the necessary organization to the teamwork. In the end, Oliver breaks up with Lois based on the importance of fighting against criminals and Lex's secret laboratories around the world. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Justiça" ("Justice")@@@1 -...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.

While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.

And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.

I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.

I say BOOOOOOOO.@@@0 -I've just seen The Saint Strikes Back for the first time and found it quite good. This was George Sanders's first appearance as the Saint, where he replaces Louis Hayward.

In this one, the Saint is sent to San Francisco to investigate a shooting at a night club. With the help of his acquaintance Inspector Fernack who has come down from New York, they help a daughter of a crime boss.

Joining Sanders in the cast are Wendy Barrie and Jonathan Hale.

Not a bad Saint movie. Worth seeing.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.@@@1 -The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.@@@0 -Leslie Charteris' series of novels of the adventures of the slightly shady Simon Templar ("The Saint") was brought to the screen in the late 1930s with the up and coming George Sanders as Templar. It was a careful choice - Sanders usually would play villains with occasional "nice roles" (ffoliott in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE, the title hero in THE STRANGE CASE OF UNCLE HARRY, the framed "best friend" of Robert Montgomery in RAGE IN HEAVEN). Here his willingness to bend the rules and break a law briefly fit his "heavy persona", while his good looks and suave behavior made Templar a fit shady hero like Chester Morris' "Boston Blackie", and (to an extent) Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto".

The films are not the best series of movie mystery serials - but they are serviceable. Like Rathbone's Holmes series or Oland's Chan's series the show frequently had actors repeating roles or playing new ones (the anti-heroine in the film here was played by Wendy Barrie, who would show up in a second film in the series). This, and slightly familiar movie sets make the series a comfortable experience for the viewers, who hear the buzz of the dialog (always showing Sanders' braininess in keeping one step ahead of the bad guys), without noting the obvious defects of the plot. All these mysteries have defects due to the fact that even the best writers of the genre can't avoid repeating old ideas again and again and again.

Here the moment when that happened was when one of the cast admitted his affection for Barrie, which she was long aware of. Shortly after he tries to protect her from the police. But as the film dealt with the identity of a criminal mastermind, it became obvious that this person was made so slightly noble as to merit being the mysterious mastermind (i.e., the script disguised him as the least likely suspect).

Barrie is after the proof that her father (who died in prison) was framed by the real criminals in a robbery gang. She has several people assisting her - mugs like William Gargan - and she gets advice from the mastermind on planning embarrassing burglaries that can't be pinned on her. The D.A. who got her father convicted (Jerome Cowan) is determined to get Barrie and her gang. The only detective who seems to have a chance to solve the case is Jonathan Hale, who is shadowing Sanders but reluctantly working with him.

The cast has some nice moments in the script - Hale (currently on a special diet) is tempted to eat a rich lobster dinner made for Sanders by Willie Best. He gets a serious upset stomach as a result, enabling Sanders and Barrie to flee Sanders' apartment. Best has to remind him (when he feels better) to head for a location that Sanders told him to go to at a certain time.

There is also an interesting role for Gilbert Emery. Usually playing decent people (like the brow-beaten husband in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) he plays a socially prominent weakling here - whose demise is reminiscent of that of a character in a Bogart movie.

On the whole a well made film for the second half of a movie house billing in 1939. It will entertain you even if it does not remain in your memory.@@@1 -For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.

I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.

So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.@@@0 -It's not too bad a b movie, with Sanders, Barrie, Hale, Cowen, Hamilton, Gargan, Fitzgerald and even Willie Best we could be either with Charlie Chan, Moto, the Falcon, Blackie, Holmes or the Saint etc. In other words you get the chance to spend another hour in the company of some old friends, from plain to urbane, murdering and being murdered - always a pleasure in my book.

Barrie's a hard-boiled dame out to avenge and clear her framed and dead father, a police detective by planning and carrying out with her coterie a string of underworld assassinations. Which would surely have had the opposite effect! Sanders joins in the fun simply by dancing in the right club in the right place in the right city at the right time with the right lighting falling on both him and the first killer (at the right time!) and killing him.

The story and acting's OK, the only gripe I've got is near the end with the hurried and almost laughable discovery of who the evil genius (Waldeman) was - did they almost forget about his relevance in the plot? That said, a solid entry in the series.@@@1 -I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!

Make no mistake this film is awful.

Here's a list of reasons:

Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.

Get the picture?

@@@0 -Catscratch is the best thing to come out of Nickeloden, including Wayne Knight. This show doesn't just appeal to Maoris and PI's. some people love it, and they're all aussies. At first glimpse I admit it seems a little crude, but it grows enormously on you. Also, to correct something that one of the other critics has said In_Correct (Tv.com) doesn't say "Does that mean you're homo now?" he says "Does that mean you're homo, owww?" This is his phrase in the show. Mr. Blik is, i think,the funniest of all like Peww-Weww's Playhouse

Firstly, I'll admit that the early episode were a bit good. But after a while the episodes became great! And just when the series had found it's surreal, whacky ...Nickelodeon cancels it!

I know Nick is meant for kids, but every once in a while a brilliant show appears that can be enjoyed by teenagers and adults. These shows include Mr. Bean the Animated Series, Charlie Brown, Pelswick, Rocko's Modern Life (at times), and Invader Zim. All of these must have been considered too good, with the exception of CatDog, 'cause Nick felt the need to cancel them.

What I like the famous final episode, where Gordon fight a duck.

I'd also like to see a DVD, with plenty of audio-commentaries and behind-the-scenes docos, and including the final episode.

But of course, what I'd definitely like to see is the show come back on the air. Wake up NICK!

I wish there was a list somewhere on the internet with all the gag closing-credits. That would be great.@@@1 -To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens!@@@0 -I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD??@@@1 -Weak plot, unlikely car malfunction, and helpless fumbling characters. At first I thought this movie was made during the seventies, since the picture quality, as well as the storyline and drama seemed taken from an old Kojac episode. When I checked and found that it was really made as late as -97 I was astonished. This is by far one of the worst and least (thriller) movies I have ever seen.

If you read this, be advised, if you see it you waste time when you could have done something more exciting, like watching paint dry.@@@0 -"Gespenster" Question of to be cool in the German cinema

There are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film "Gespenster" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.

In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...

Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time!@@@1 -Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.@@@0 -OK, here is my personal list of top Nicktoons shows as in today:

1. All Grown Up/SpongeBob SquarePants

2. My Life as a Teenage Robot

3. Invader Zim

4. CATSCRATCH/Rugrats

Notice a word with only capital letters? That means this is the Nick show I'm going to talk about.

"Catscratch" is basically a simple but great animated comedy about three wealthy cats - Mr. Blik, Gordon, and Waffles - who get into weird and REALLY surreal situations, from attempting to join Human Kimberely's slumber party for root beer to saving a planet of slugs from the evil spaceship. This is one Nick show that you will simply have your funny bone tickled sooner or later! The theme song is catchy and memorable. Voice actors - including Wayne Knight from the "Seinfield" franchise - brings the characters to fresh life with very quirky personalities. The stories are enjoyable (fans' episodes would be "King of All Root Beer" and "Gordon's Lucky Claw"). And the humor is all done in some style of Earthworm Jim.

So in conclusion, "Catscratch" is one of the Nicktoons series, like "Invader Zim" and "MLAATR", which becomes very, very popular all over the world in just 3 seasons or less.@@@1 -Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!!@@@0 -Not since Spongebob Squarepants have i seen a greater cartoon on TV. The colors are great, the voices could't be better, the characters are so original, great great cartoon. Hope Nickolodean continues to develop this cartoon. Hope the Season DVD comes out soon!!! I love cartoons like this and I hope more people tune in to se this great cartoon. It is very hard to find the Season DVD, so if somebody finds a store that is selling it please let me Know. The only Catscratch merchandise available on Nick Shop is a great lookin shirt, but very very very expensive!!! If you love Spongebob; and who doesn''t?; you'll love Catscratch too!@@@1 -Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...

There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.

@@@0 -When reading a review from another user, saying that it's a terrible game, I could not stand idle and do nothing!

Well, this game is great, from the news clips (with two real persons, full of humour sense and credibility!), to the story, I find it very good! I only complain about the enemies start blinking when they die, until they disappear; and some frustrating situations on the LEILA VR missions, when riding the bike, here and there...

Except that, it's a great game, with a great story, good graphics, excellent characters, great soundtrack... I recommend it! Surely! It can be a bit old, but still enjoyable! At least, on the Dreamcast... but the PS2 version shall be the same.@@@1 -Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!

Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.@@@0 -Here is the explanation screenwriter Pamela Katz gave me for why MvT introduced JG as a specific character in the film:

"...the historical record is very clear: Joseph Goebbels was directly responsible for the release of the Rosenstrasse prisoners, so we needed a way to get Goebbels himself into our film... For a woman like Lena, a woman from an aristocratic family with connections, it wasn't unthinkable that she would make an attempt to go to the top. The idea of getting to Goebbels wasn't impossible for her, so that became our hook."

Those of you who insist on seeing an actual sex act here can read my new thread below & then fire away.

Jan Lisa Huttner FILMS FOR TWO@@@1 -How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.

I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.

The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material.@@@0 -Although the beginning of the movie in New York takes too long, the movie is a must see for people who like this genre. When Hannah goes to Berlin to visit the older woman who helped her mother during the war, the movie gets much much better.The movie is a bit like The Pianist, can not really be compared.@@@1 -There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....

This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!@@@0 -The van trotta movie rosenstrasse is the best movie i have seen in years. i am actually not really interested in films with historical background but with this she won my interest for that time!!

the only annoying thing about the movie have been the scenes in new york, and the impression i had of "trying to be as American as possible" ... which i think has absolutely failed.

the scenes in the back really got to my heart. the German actress katja riemann completely deserved her award. she is one of the most impressing actress i have ever seen. in future i will watch more of her movies. great luck for me that i am a native German speaking =) and only for a year in the us, so as soon as i am back i'll buy some riemann dvds.

so to all out there who have not seen this movie yet: WATCH IT!!! i think it would be too long to describe what it is all about yet, especially all the flash backs and switches of times are hard to explain, but simply watcxh it, you will be zesty!!!!!!!@@@1 -This movie is so bad it hurts. The car doing 30 mph when it's supposed to go 100... the shift lever that's stuck (in Park!), the nurse that drives for almost 2 hours with the cell phone on the shoulder...can't any of the 2 morons take this damn phone? There's nothing credible in this crap. I would be ashamed to be seen in a movie like this!@@@0 -This was a wonderful film. How these women tried to save their husbands. I thought that the performances of the actors were great. I had to think about the film for a very long time. I think that every student should see this film so that they can think about war, relationships, friendship and love. I liked the film because it told and showed me how strong love can be. I wish I could be so strong as a woman. I really liked it because it told me something about relationships and that is what I like to see in a movie. I think you can compare the film with Der Untergang, The pianist. If you put these three films together, you have a great sight of what happened during the war. We should remember something like the war forever.@@@1 -this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'

the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.

the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.

overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.@@@0 -SPOILERS WITHIN.

It appears that von Trotta was a lot more at ease with what the balance of personal story versus history of the events than she was in her earlier film Versprechen, Das (1995).

The direction seemed carefully controlled, and visually I felt it was highly appealing - especially where the visual narrative was concerned (the title-sequence blend and the lighting of a new candle in modern times commemorating the deaths of various characters in the past).

To clarify two points that many people have been confused by:

Firstly, Lena did not sleep with Goebbels. Although this may have seemed implied, it was not the intent. Von Trotta told me so herself! (And she is a very nice lady, by the way!)

Secondly, the time-frame of events was in fact historically accurate (the actual dates are shown on the close-up of the memorial) and the prisoners were released as suddenly as in the film. There is evidence showing that Goebbels was annoyed about having done this, and had planned to eventually recapture those he had set free.

Overall, what most impressed me most was that it was an original story from a much 'over-movied' era. It seems a shame that it has taken such a long time (for various reasons) for this film to hit our screens.

More of the same please, Margarethe!@@@1 -This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron.

A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever.

The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.

If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of "Runaway Car" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.

Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as "A car is an extension of its owner!", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped "Titanic" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.

My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first.@@@0 -Rosenstrasse is a touching story of courage in adversity. Reichdeutch women find that their Jewish Husbands have been locked up pending deportation. One an aristocrat disowned by her family, Lena Fischer, finds herself among the mob as does General Gudarian's sister. But rank and privilege merit no special consideration.

Nor does service to the Reich as a female detainee whose husband is on the Ostfront will learn. In one of the most horrifying scenes of the movie, the guards take the wedding band given by her soldier husband.

Lest you think this is typical German brutishness we in America today have Lady Bush imperiously ordering the arrest of Gold Star Mothers (mothers of US service-members killed in action) because their very presence is offencive. Little, regrettably, has changed in the 60 years from Der Fuher to Der Fumbler.

Fortunately the eight year old daughter Ruth escapes capture.

Waiting in the cold on Rosenstrasse Lena Fischer is at first reluctant to take in Ruth responding in a way that we take as typically German. Even Lena Fisher's brother Colonel Arthur von Eschenbach who is aware of and opposed to the Holocost cautions Lena against it. but Lena chooses to embrace the idea with an American rebelliousness even renaming Ruth, the more aryan sounding name Helga Lehmann.

The siege ends favourably on Rosenstrasse but Lena mourns: What happened to Ruth after the war? Years later Ruth's daughter Hannah sets out in search of her mother's past and meets 90 year old Lena under the guise of writing a personal history of the war.

I did deem it interesting that Hannah wanted so much to look up the family but never checked on the fate of her grandfather last known to have served on the Ostfront.@@@1 -Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT

I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!@@@0 -I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in "Anne Frank" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did!@@@1 -I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...@@@0 -"Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.

Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.

The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.

Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.@@@1 -OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.@@@0 -This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.

This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story.@@@1 -this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.

full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all

@@@0 -Goebbels motivation in backing down was not explored. In the aftermath of Stalingrad the Reich had decided to go for 'total war'. This is referred to in the film. Part of this was to use women in the war effort, which Germany had not previously done to any great extent. An SS massacre of women would have faced Goebbels with a public relations disaster of massive proportion. His preference was to make the problem go away as quietly as possible, on the basis that the Jewish men could always be rounded up later. I understand the majority survived the war.

His other problem was that the 'Red' Berlin had never been very enthusiastically behind the Nazi cause and had to be handled cautiously. Again a massacre of women could have cost the Nazis what mediocre level of support they had in their capital city.

It was interesting that the majority of SS uniforms showed patches which indicated that the men wearing them were not of German nationality, but were from German origins in other countries such as Lithuania or Latvia@@@1 -This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad.@@@0 -Another small piece of the vast picture puzzle of the Holocaust is turned face up in this docudrama about the Rosenstrasse Protest in Berlin, an event I had not known of, that began in late February, 1943. The details are given in an addendum that follows this review.

The film narrative sets the story of this protest within another, contemporary story that begins in New York City, in the present. Here a well off, non-observant Jewish woman, whose husband has just died, shocks her children and others by insisting on an extremely orthodox mourning ritual. She goes even further, demanding that her daughter's non-Jewish fiancé leave the house.

The distressed daughter, Hannah (Maria Schrader) then learns for the first time from an older cousin that during WWII, in Berlin, her mother, then 8 years old, had been taken in and protected by an Aryan woman. Hannah drops everything, goes to Berlin, and finds this woman, Lena Fischer, now 90. Hannah easily persuades the woman to tell her story. It all seems rather too pat.

The film thereafter improves, focusing through long flashbacks primarily on the events of 1943 that surrounded the protest, in which the fictitious central character is the same Mrs. Fischer at 33 (played magnificently by Katja Riemann), a Baroness and accomplished pianist who is married to Fabian (Martin Feifel), a Jewish concert violinist, one of the men detained at the Rosenstrasse site.

The narrative does briefly weave back to the present from time to time and also ends in New York City once again. While scenes in the present are color saturated, the 1943 scenes are washed out, strong on blue-gray tones.

The quality of acting is generally quite good, what we might expect given the deep reservoir of talent in Germany and the direction of Margarethe von Trotta, New German Cinema's most prominent female filmmaker, herself a former actress.

The story of the protest is told simply. Only one feature is lacking that would have helped: still-text notes at the end indicating the eventual outcome for those people taken into custody at Rosenstrasse, an outcome that was, as the addendum below makes clear, incredibly positive.

"Rosenstrasse" has not fared well in the opinions of most film critics. Overly long, needlessly layered, purveyor of gender stereotypes, manipulative with music: so go the usual raps. It is too long. But I found in this film an austere, powerful, spontaneous and entirely convincing voice of protest from the women who kept the vigil outside the place on Rosenstrasse where their Jewish relatives and others were detained. I found nothing flashy, contemporary or manipulative in this depiction.

The very absence of extreme violence (no one is shot or otherwise physically brutalized) intensified my tension, which increased incrementally as the film progressed. You keep waiting for some vicious attack to begin any minute. The somberness of the film stayed with me afterward. I awoke often later in the night I saw the film, my mind filled with bleak, melancholic, chaotic images and feelings conjured by the film. For me, that happens rarely. (In German and English). My rating: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 05/31/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

Add: The Rosenstrasse Protest: Swept up from their forced labor jobs in what was meant to be the Final Roundup in the national capital, 1700 to 2000 Jews, mostly men married to non-Jewish women, were herded into Rosenstrasse 2-4, a welfare office for the Jewish community in central Berlin.

Because these Jews had German relatives, many of them highly connected, Adolf Eichmann hoped that segregating them from other prisoners would convince family members that their loved ones were being sent to labor camps rather than to more ominous destinations in occupied Poland.

Normally, those arrested remained in custody for only two days before being loaded onto trains bound for the East. But before deportation of prisoners could occur in this case, wives and other relatives got wind of what was happening and appeared at the Rosenstrasse address, first in ones and twos, and then in ever-growing numbers.

Perhaps as many as six thousand participated in the protest, although not all at the same time. Women demanded back their husbands, day after day, for a week. Unarmed, unorganized, and leaderless, they faced down the most brutal forces at the disposal of the Third Reich.

Joseph Goebbels, the Gauleiter (governor or district leader) of Berlin, anxious to have that city racially cleansed, was also in charge of the nation's public morale. On both counts he was worried about the possible repercussions of the women's actions. Rather than inviting more open dissent by shooting the women down in the streets and fearful of jeopardizing the secrecy of the "Final Solution," Goebbels with Hitler's concurrence released the Rosenstrasse prisoners and even ordered the return of twenty-five of them who already had been sent to Auschwitz!

To both Hitler and Goebbels, the decision was a mere postponement of the inevitable. But they were mistaken. Almost all of those released from Rosenstrasse survived the war. The women won an astonishing victory over the forces of destruction. (Adapted from an article posted at the University of South Florida website, "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust.")@@@1 -argh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.

maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.

take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)

the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.

don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.@@@0 -I'm always surprised about how many times you'll see something about World War 2 on the German national television. You would think they don't like to open old wounds, but there isn't a week that goes by without a documentary or a movie about the horror and atrocities of this war. Perhaps it's a way of dealing with their past, I don't know, but you sure can't blame them of ignoring what happened. And it has to be said: most of those documentaries are really worth a watch because they never try to gloss over the truth and the same can be said about their movies (think for instance about "Der Untergang" or "The Downfall" as you might now it) which are also very realistic.

One of those movies is "Rosenstrasse". It tells a true story and deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the war, even though the movie starts with a family in the USA, at the present day. After Hannah's father died, her mother all a sudden turned into an orthodox Jew even though she hasn't been very religious before. She doesn't know where the strange behavior of her mother comes from, but as she starts digging in her mother's troubled childhood, Hannah understands how little she has ever known about her mother's past.

The fact that this movie deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the Nazi regime is already quite surprising. For as far as I know, there hasn't been another movie that deals with this subject. (For those who didn't know this yet: Being married to a so-called pure Aryian man or woman meant for many Jews that they weren't immediately sent to one of the concentration camps, but that they had to work in a factory). But it does not only tell something about the problems of the mixed marriages, it also gives a good idea of how these people were often seen by their own parents and relatives. How difficult it sometimes was for them during the Nazi regime and how these people, most of the time women, did everything within their power to free their men, once they were captured and locked away in for instance the Rosenstrasse...

The acting is really good and the story is very well written, although the way it was presented in the beginning didn't really do it for me (and that's exactly the only part that you'll get to see in the trailer). Perhaps it's just me, but I would have left out a big part of what happens in the present day. At least of the part that is situated in the USA, because the part where Hannah goes to Berlin and talks to someone who knows more about her mother's past, definitely works.

If you are interested in everything that has something to do with the Second World War, and if you aren't necessarily looking for a lot of action shots, than this is definitely a movie you should see. This isn't a movie in which you'll see any battles or gunfights, but it certainly is an interesting movie, because it gives you an idea about an aspect of the war only little is known of. I give it an 8/10.@@@1 -I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!

The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?

Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.

I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.

(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)@@@0 -In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.

Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.

Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.

Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting "Give us back our husbands". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, "I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.

The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, "there was nothing we could do". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on.@@@1 -I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.

I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.@@@0 -Berlin-born in 1942 Margarethe von Trotta was an actress and now she is a very important director and writer. She has been described, perhaps even unfairly caricatured, as a director whose commitment to bringing a woman's sensibility to the screen outweighs her artistic strengths. "Rosenstrasse," which has garnered mixed and even strange reviews (the New York Times article was one of the most negatively aggressive reviews I've ever read in that paper) is not a perfect film. It is a fine movie and a testament to a rare coalescing of successful opposition to the genocidal Nazi regime by, of all peoples, generically powerless Germans demonstrating in a Berlin street.

Co-writer von Trotta uses the actual Rosenstrasse incident in the context of a young woman's search for information about her mother's never disclosed life as a child in the German capital during World War II.

The husband of Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) has died and in a surprising reversion to an orthodox Jewish lifestyle apparently hitherto in long abeyance, Ruth not only "sits shivah" (the Jews' week-long mourning ritual) but she insists on following the strict proscriptions of her faith. Her apartment in New York City reflects the affluence secured by her deceased spouse's labors. Her American-born daughter, Hannah (Maria Schrader) and her brother are a bit put-off by mom's assumption of restrictive orthodox Jewish practices but they pitch in. The mother coldly rejects the presence of Hannah's fiance, a non-Jew named Luis (Fedja van Huet). A domestic crisis might well erupt as Ruth warns that she'll disown Hannah if she doesn't give up doting, handsome Luis. Stay tuned.

A cousin arrives to pay her respects and also drops clues to an interested Hannah about a wartime mystery about mom's childhood in Berlin. Hannah is intrigued - she queries her mom who resolutely refuses to discuss that part of her life. This is very, very realistic. I grew up with parents who fled Nazi Germany just in time and I knew many children whose families, in whole but usually in part, escaped the Holocaust. Those days were simply not discussed.

So Hannah, having learned that a German gentile woman saved Ruth's life, traipses off to Berlin hoping to find the savior still breathing. Were she not, this would have been a very short film. But Ruth, pretending to be a historian, locates 90 year-old Lena Fischer (Doris Schade), now a widow. As the happy-to-be-interviewed but shaken up by repressed memories Lena tells her story, the scenes shift fairly seamlessly between present day Berlin and the war-time capital.

The young Lena of 1943 (Katja Riemann) was a fine pianist married to a Jewish violinist, Fabian Fischer (Martin Feifel). With the advent of the Nazi regime he was required to use "Israel" as a middle name just as Jewish women had to add "Sarah" to their names(incidentally I wish IMDb had not given Fabian's name on its characters list with the false "Israel" included-it simply perpetuates a name applied by Nazis as a mark of classification and degradation).

While Germany deported most of its Jewish population to concentration camps, those married to "Aryans" were exempted. For a time. Until 1943 when the regime decided to take them too (most were men; a minority were Jewish women married to non-Jews). The roundup is shown here in all its frightening intensity.

The young Lena tries to locate her husband. All she and many other women know is that they're confined in a building on Rosenstrasse. The crowd of anxious women builds up, some piteously seeking help from German officers who predictably refuse aid and also verbally abuse them ("Jew-loving whore" being one appellation). As a subplot Lena more or less adopts eight-year-old Ruth who hid when her mother was seized (remember, Ruth is now sitting shiva in Manhattan). The child Ruth is fetchingly portrayed by Svea Lohde.

Through increasingly angry protestations the women finally prevail. The men, and a handful of women, are released. As in the real story the Nazis gave in, one of the rare, almost unprecedented times when the madmen acknowledged defeat in their homicidal agenda (another was the termination of the euthanasia campaign to rid the Reich of mental defectives and chronic invalids but that's another story).

Von Trotta builds up the tension and each woman's story is both personal and universal. Hannah continues to prod the aging Lena who slowly, one gathers, begins to suspect she's not dealing with an ordinary historian but rather someone with a need to learn about the girl she rescued, the child whose mother was murdered.

The contrasts between Rosenstrasse of 1943, a set, and the street today in a bustling, rebuilt, unified Berlin provide a recurring thematic element. Today's Berlin bears the heritage but not the scars of a monstrous past. Von Trotta makes that point very well.

The main actors are uniformly impressive. Lena's husband while strong is also shown as totally helpless in the snare of confinement with a likely outlook of deportation (which is shown to have been clearly understood by all characters - including the local police and military - as a one-way trip to oblivion). The older Ruth is catalytically forced to confront demons long suppressed in her happy New York life. Hannah is very believable as a young woman whose father's death triggers a need to discover her family's past. These things happen (although the Times's critic appears not to know that).

Von Trotta's hand is sure but not perfect. A scene with Goebbels at a soiree enjoying Lena's violin playing is unnecessary and distractive. The suggestion that she may have gone to bed with the propaganda minister, the most fanatical top-level Hitler worshiper, to save her husband detracts from the wondrous accomplishment of the demonstrating spouses and relatives. Most of the German officers come from central casting and are molded by the Erich von Stroheim "copy and paste" school of Teutonic nastiness. But that's understandable.

The Rosenstrasse story has been the subject of books and articles and some claim it's a paradigm case for arguing that many more Jews could have been saved had more Germans protested. Unfortunately that argument is nonsense. The German women who occupied Rosenstrasse were deeply and understandably self-interested. Most Germans were located on a line somewhere between passive and virulent anti-Semitism. THAT'S why the Rosenstrasse protest was virtually singular. Whether one buys or rejects the Goldenhagen thesis that most Germans were willing accomplices of the actual murderers it just can not be denied that pre-Nazi endemic anti-Semitism erupted into a virulent strain from 1933 on.

The elderly Lena remarks that what was accomplished by the women was "a ray of light" in an evil time. Most of the men and women sprung from a near death trip survived the war. So "a ray of light" it was and von Trotta's movie is a beacon of illumination showing that some were saved by the courage of largely ordinary women and for every life saved an occasion for celebration exists. And always will.

9/10@@@1 -:::SPOILER ALERT:::

Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.

I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, "The Running Man" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.

There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.

The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.

The special effects are OK, without being impressive.

RATING: 3/10@@@0 -Rosenstrasse is more an intimate film than one of epic proportions, which could have kept away many film goers looking for a Pianist similar plot. Fortunately, Von Trotta, a good screenwriter, opts for a feminist peep to an era too much illustrated on its colorful exterior, but too little analyzed in terms of intimacy and from the point of view of ordinary Aryan German rather from a Jewish standpoint. Rosentrasse finds its strength in these unsung burdens of people trapped within historical circumstances of which they emerge as victims. The pace of the film is introspective, poignantly slow, meditative. Besides, the characters are so vivid while transitions between generations and the passing of time has been deftly crafted. Rosenstrasse is not a masterpiece, and some narrative flaws are well discerned. Another fault lies on a trivial cinematography unable to capture the intensity of the internal drama lived by the characters. Nevertheless, this film is worth seeing. Finally, Rosenstrasse is part of the last trend in German films dealing with the ghosts of a nightmarish past,trend that includes such excellent films as Nowhere in Africa, and recently, the controversial Downfall. I would recommend this film to those who know how to read beyond the images.@@@1 -I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.@@@0 -Does anyone know, where I can see or download the "What I like about you" season 4 episodes in the internet? Because I would die to see them and here in Germany there won't be shown on TV. Please help me. I wanna see the season 4 episodes badly. I already have seen episode 4 and episode 18 on YouTube. But I couldn't find more episodes of season 4. Is there maybe a website where I can see the episodes? Because I've read some comments in forums from Germany and there were people which had already seen the season 4 episodes even though they haven't been shown at TV in Germany. I am happy about every information I can get. Thanks Kate@@@1 -Maybe television will be as brutal one day. Maybe „Big Brother` was only the first step in the direction Stephen „Richard Bachmann` King described the end point of. But enough about that. If I spend too much words talking about the serious background topic of this movie I do exactly what the producers hoped by choosing this material. It's the same with „The 6th Day`. No matter, how primitive the film is, it provokes a discussion about its topic, which serves the producers as publicity. Let's NOT be taken in by that. The social criticism that is suggested by that plot summary is only an alibi to make it possible to produce a speculative, violent movie, more for video sale than for cinema.

I didn't read the book. I don't dare criticising Stephen King without having read him, but when I saw the film I thought they couldn't make such a terrible film out of a good book: In a typical 1980s set with 1980s music and some minor actors Arnold Schwarzenegger finds himself as a policeman running away from killers within a cruel TV show. The audience is cheering.

Together with „Predator`, this is definitely Schwarzenegger's most stupid movie. 2 stars out of 10.@@@0 -*What I Like About SPOILERS* Teenager Holly Tyler (Amanda Bynes) goes to live with older sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) to avoid moving to Japan with her father; but she doesn't know the half of the wacky things that will happen to her from now on, and not only to her, but to her sister, her friends Gary (Wesley Jonathan) and Tina (Alison Munn), boyfriend Henry (Michael McMillian), crush Vince (Nick Zano), Valerie's boyfriend Jeff (Simon Rex), first boss (then firefighter then husband) Vic (Dan Cortese), annoying colleague Lauren (Leslie Grossman) and second boss Peter (?) If you don't have a funny bone in your body, please skip this; if you like only veeeery sophisticated comedy this isn't for you; if you like a funny, sometimes touching show with two hot chicks who can act in the lead (and none other than the fabulous 'Mary Cherry' from Popular - Leslie Grossman - in the main cast), then what the hell are you waiting for? You're welcome to Casa De Tyler! What I Like About You (2002-2006): 8.@@@1 -This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.

With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.

Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.

The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice.

Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!@@@0 -I love this show. I watch all the reruns every day even though I have seen all of them like 6 time s each.

It's about two sisters, Holly (Amanda Bynes) and Val (Jennie Garth), who live in New York. Holly goes to live with Val when their dad is transferred to Japan. Val has the perfect life, she has a boyfriend and a perfect apartment of the Upper East Side.

The show basically shows all the problems Vall and Holly go through. the main problem is guys but also is about being responsible and other life choices.

Holly is 16 and is a total free spirit while Val is the complete opposite. She is the organized has to have a plan to do anything kind of person.

The other characters are Henry, Vince, Gary, Lauren, and Tina.@@@1 -It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.@@@0 -I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.

It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations.

Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all.@@@1 -Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.@@@0 -I have just started watching the TV series "What I like About You" and I must say that is a joy to watch. I always like to see new shows do well considering a lot of shows go off before you really get a feel for them. I have watched Amanda Bynes since "All That" she is truly a funny girl, what is the best about her comedy is that its so natural and what i mean about that is, its something that a person could here there best friend saying, its not rehearsed.

I just recently started watching the show and have fell in love. I am just watching re-runs as of now but am looking forward to the next season. All the characters in the show give something to the whole story line. Its nice to see some old face from other shows I enjoyed watching in the past such as, Jennie Garth from "90210", Leslie Grossman from "Popular", and Wesley Jonathan from "City Guys." The New Character are very talented as well, Nick Zano has that charm the makes you love him even when he is doing something wrong to holly (Bynes).

Overall this show has the right ingredients to be successful, I look forward to watching it grow.@@@1 -HAH! So this is the movie that the "Next Action Stars" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...

Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this "teleplay" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it.@@@0 -My mom and I have just recently become addicted to this show, laughing our butts off! I've only seen about 10 episodes, and I am disappointed that I didn't pay attention to this hilarious series before they were canceled! The story line is very funny, the characters really have great personalities (or, not so great, but they're still funny!). I TiVO every episode of What I Like About You. Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth, as well as all of the cast, never leave me bored while watching! There is some unsuitable language for children and some sexual content, but with a parental guide near, you shouldn't have too much problems. There is some sort of 'Friends' type of relationship that attracts me to this show. I really enjoy it.@@@1 -After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.

First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug.

Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?

Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.

But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.

Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this.

Joel Silver should be ashamed.@@@0 -'What I Like About You' is definitely a show that I couldn't wait to see each day. Amanda Bynes is such an excellent actress and I grew up watching her show: 'The Amanda Show.' She's a very funny person and seems to be down to earth. "Holly" is such a like-able person and has an "out-there" personality. I enjoyed how she always seemed to turn things around and upside down, so she messed herself up at times. But that's what made the show so great.

I especially loved the show when the character 'Vince' came along. Nick Zano is very HOT and funny, as well as 'Gary', Wesley Jonathan. The whole cast was great, each character had their own personality and charm. Jennie Garth, Allison Munn, and Leslie Grossman were all very interesting. I especially loved 'Lauren'; she's the best! She helped make the show extra funny and you never know what she's gonna do or say next! Overall the show is really nice but the reason I didn't give it a 10 was because there's no more new episodes and because the episodes could've been longer and more deep.@@@1 -To heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for "difficult cases." The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.

There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: "Be careful." Farrell: "It's too late to be careful." Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.

The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.@@@0 -The show is about two sisters living together. Holly being the younger one has some teenage problems on the other hand her sister Val has job,boy friend,fiancé problems like most of the women on the planet. They try to support each other they make mistakes sometimes but they don't give up and continue. And the show is also about friendship. The priorities in life. I loved this show so much. It is funny and the actors are so good. I am really sad that the show is over. I still watch the reruns time to time:) Amanda Bynes is very talented. Jenny Garth may be new to comedy but she plays really well. She is one of the actresses i like watching. I like Vince and Holly's relationship they are very natural. Gary is a natural talent and makes you laugh each time he shows up. With Tina Holly found a real friend and i really like them hanging out. Lauren character is so funny and she is a natural talent. I would like to see her more. This show really takes you in and makes you laugh. I wish the show hasn't been over.@@@1 -Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!

No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.

The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.

But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.

Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)

Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.

In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.

Barry Freed@@@0 -What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.

see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back...@@@1 -Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.

Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of "The Spirit of the Forest" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the "plot" begins.

So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the "Spirit") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.

After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)@@@0 -While I would say I enjoy the show, I expected something completely different from when I first saw 'What I like about you' I expected to find something along the lines of 'All That' (I am not sure if it is going on anymore) but I have to say I do like the show and while i don't classify it as a breakthrough show, it is very charming and I do like the chemistry between the characters as well (including the supporting cast)

I would definitely say that it is great to see Wesley Jonathan back on the screen because I really loved him in City Guy. I had also seen the woman who plays Valerie's friend in Popular and while I think that was an okay show, I do not really like her character in this show because she's just not my cup of tea but she rounds it out pretty well@@@1 -The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.@@@0 -Though Cher and Cage are the focal points of this story, Gardenia and Dukakis are good counterparts for them- this is where Loretta and Ronny will be in 50 years- still in love. The whole cast does a nice job from Aiello to John Mahoney- it shows a real slice of life. Though I saw this long ago- I am glad it finally catapulted Cage to the place where he was recognized in Hollywood for his talent. From the music to the scenes at the opera to the kitchen table arguments- this is a very entertaining movie.@@@1 -Not one of the better pokemon movies.

Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.

Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.

The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.

Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.

Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.@@@0 -This is the kind of film for a snowy Sunday afternoon when the rest of the world can go ahead with its own business as you descend into a big arm-chair and mellow for a couple of hours. Wonderful performances from Cher and Nicolas Cage (as always) gently row the plot along. There are no rapids to cross, no dangerous waters, just a warm and witty paddle through New York life at its best. A family film in every sense and one that deserves the praise it received.@@@1 -This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.

The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better.@@@0 -Either or, I love the suspension of any formulaic plot in this movie. I have re-visited it many times and it always holds up. A little too stylized for some but I fancy that any opera lover will love it. Norman Jewison, a fellow Canadian, takes enormous chances with his movies and his casting and it nearly always pays off in movies that are off centre and somehow delicious, as this one is. I have often wondered at the paucity of Cher's acting roles, whether she has chosen to minimize this part of her life or she does not get enough good roles to chew on. I have found her to be a superb actress who can retreat into a role, as in this particular one or be loud and daring and fierce as in "Mask". I found the comedic strokes broad at times ( a hair salon called "Cinderella")but this was the whole intent of both the writer and director. Nicolas Page plays the angst ridden tenor of opera, all extravagant gestures, at one point demanding a knife so as to slit his own throat. The Brooklyn scenes are magical, this is a Brooklyn under moonlight, romanticized and dramatic, just like opera. All in all a very satisfying film not to everyone's taste by a long shot, I loved the ending, everyone brought together like a Greek Chorus, every part subtly nuanced and blending with the others, the camera pulling away down the hall, leaving the players talking. 8 out of 10.@@@1 -This movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****

@@@0 -"Moonstruck" is a lovely little film directed by superb story teller, Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night, Fiddler on the Roof, The Hurricane). The film is great on many levels. It shows a good slice of Italian culture, has a touching romance, and (best of all) is a hilarious comedy.

One thing I liked most about the film was the relative unconventional looks of the actors. Nicolas Cage looks positively odd for most of the film, and Cher... well, Cher always looks a little odd.

Overall, it's a fun film, and easy to recommend.

7.4 out of 10@@@1 -NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!

Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.

The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect.

Just avoid this "comedy". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire.@@@0 -This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike "Yes", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.

Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.

But the film's title is "Ghosts", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them… Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Françoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Françoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.

Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.

And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. "Marie is dead," concludes Françoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a "niña", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain.@@@1 -I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.@@@0 -I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good movie—just imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!@@@1 -This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.

Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.

This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.

That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".

But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.

Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.

But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.

If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.

Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.@@@0 -This is not a bad film. It is not wildly funny, but it is interesting and

entertaining. It has a few funny moments. Cher gives a good

performance in a role that is very opposite her real-life self. Her

performance alone is worth the watch. If this movie had come out

today it would not have been nominated, but by '80s standards it

was excellent.@@@1 -The biggest National Lampoon hit remains "Animal House", and rightly so. It was funny, raucous and good-natured.

The exact opposite of every other National Lampoon film. Including "Class Reunion".

PLEASE do not be fooled by the inclusion of Stephen Furst ("Flounder") from "Animal House". Or by the fact that John Hughes wrote this jumbled mess. This reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful.

One star, and that's being generous. Then again, I always thought most of my old classmates were demons, vampires and serial killers, too.@@@0 -It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes ("Snap out of it!"), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!@@@1 -Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK@@@0 -I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those "Cosmo's moon" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a "Cosmo's moon" is?@@@1 -Anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie.

There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).

National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.@@@0 -I'm really suprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of *****@@@1 -If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.

The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.

John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.@@@0 -I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of *****@@@1 -Remember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn't quite meet those same feelings as an adult? That occurred to me when I went back to school..the National Lampoon's Class Reunion. The film has a perfect opportunity for laughs, but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth, a man who appears to be a vampire, and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. You have the class president who believes he's the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film, he's a coward and joke), a couple of pot smokers who don't even know they are at their own class reunion, and a man named Gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name..this is the one running joke I enjoyed). There is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places, a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog, and the cook(you know her from "goonies" and "Throw Mama From The Train")who loves to place food on people's plates with her hands! The film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister!). The film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened, trashed hallways of the old high school. They were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. The film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on), but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. The film's true problem is that it really doesn't know where to go. The film is pretty much a one-joke premise for it has unassured direction..if it really has any direction at all. The cast is enthusiastic enough, but the material they are to make funny just doesn't have the quality to hold any interest. It's a curio for fans of early 80's comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so).@@@0 -"Moonstruck" is one of the best films ever. I own that film on DVD! The movie deals with a New York widow (Cher) who falls in love with her boyfriend's (Danny Aiello) angry brother (Nicholas Cage) who works at a bakery. I'm glad Cher won an Oscar for that movie. Nicholas Cage and Danny Aiello are great, too. The direction from Norman Jewison (who directed "Fiddler On The Roof") is fantastic. "Moonstruck" is an excellent movie for everyone to see and laugh. A must-see!

10/10 stars!@@@1 -Recently, I saw the documentary "The revolution will not be televised", also know as "Chávez: inside the coup". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chávez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chávez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance "Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela." It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, "X-ray of a lie". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to "Chávez: inside the coup" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching "Chávez: inside the coup" to look at "X-ray of a lie" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chávez-propaganda.@@@0 -The "movie aimed at adults" is a rare thing these days, but Moonstruck does it well, and is still a better than average movie, which is aging very well. Although it's comic moments aim lower than the rest of it, the movie has a wonderful specificity (Italians in Brooklyn) that isn't used to shortchange the characters or the viewers. (i.e. Mobsters never appear in acomplication. It never becomes grotesque like My Big Fat Greek Wedding) The secondary story lines are economically told with short scenes that allow a break from the major thread. These are the scenes that are now missing in contemporary movies where their immediate value cannot be impressed upon producers and bigwigs. I miss these scenes. It also beautifully involves older characters. The movie takes it's own slight, quiet path to a conclusion. There isn't a poorly written scene included anywhere to make some executives sphincter relax. Cage and Cher do very nice work.

Moonstruck invokes old-school, ethnic, workaday New York much like 'Marty' except Moonstruck is way less sanctimonious.@@@1 -In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country.

They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.

They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.

They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).

They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.

They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).

They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.

They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.

That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.@@@0 -As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?

Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low...@@@1 -This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.

There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.

The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?

There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.

It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.

I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.

Nazi propaganda has returned!@@@0 -Seeing "Moonstruck" after so many years is a reminder of how sweet and sensationally funny this film was when it first appeared. Who knew that Cher could act? Who had ever heard of Olympia Dukakis? Nicholas Cage was the beginning of his career, and Vincent Gardenia and Danny Aiello were not known for their comedic talents, nor was Norman Jewison the director.

The only really flat note in this splendid work is "When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like a Big Pizza Pie, That's Amore," a song that is sung too many times in the movie (once is already too many) and that went on to have a long afterlife in popular music.

Cher is -- forgive me -- sensational as Loretta Castorini, a widow who wants to be married and does not have to be in love with the groom. Aielo (Johny Cammareri) obliges by proposing, offering her his pinkie ring as a substitute for an engagement ring, then rushes off to Sicily to be with his dying mother. He charges Loretta with seeing to that his estranged brother, Ronny, attends the wedding. Loretta confronts Ronny and quickly falls in love with him. Meanwhile, her father (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her mother (Olympia Dukakis), which Loretta accidentally discovers when Ronny invites her to the Metropolitan Opera.

Everything works out in the end, as it inevitably does in films of this genre. In the meantime, all the actors acquit themselves admirably and the audience enjoys itself. In its way, "Moonstruck" is how Hollywood used to be at its best: rollicking entertainment with no social significance whatsoever. If they'd only lost "That's Amore" along the way, it would have been perfect.@@@1 -(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)

People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.

I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.

"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.

The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.

Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.

Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.

After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh?

The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.

For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/@@@0 -"Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.

The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.

The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up.@@@1 -The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.

When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.

Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.

Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.

He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.

Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.

Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.@@@0 -A funny comedy from beginning to end! There are several hilarious scenes but it's also loaded with many subtle comedic moments which is what made the movie for me. Creative story line with a very talented cast. I thoroughly enjoyed it!@@@1 -I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of "Buffalo Bill," "Wild Bill Hickok," and "Calamity Jane," all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great.

The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like "Buffalo Bill." Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.

In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one.@@@0 -I don't think that many films (especially comedies) have added memorable, quotable dialog like MOONSTRUCK. I won't illustrate it - you can see a remarkably long list of quotes on this thread - but any film that can make subjects like the defense of using expensive copper piping rather than brass for plumbing purposes into memorable dialog is amazing to me. It is not the only line that pops up and makes an imprint on our memory. How about a restaurant waiter who regrets a planned marriage proposal because it will mean the loss of an old bachelor client? Or a nice, elderly dog fancier encouraging his pack to howl at he moon? Or Perry (John Mahoney's) description of a female student's youthful promise as "moonlight in a martini" (my favorite line).

MOONSTRUCK is a wonderful example of brilliant script, first rate direction, and a good ensemble cast that fits perfectly. There are other examples (the drama THE OX-BOW INCIDENT is another example, but a grimmer one). Cher, Olympia Dukakis, Vincent Gardenia, Nicholas Cage, John Mahoney, and Danny Aiello are all involved in plots and cross purposes that examine the nature of love, and how to handle it. Is it a good thing to be totally in love? Cher and Cage, at the end, seem to think so, but Dukakis knows that real love drives the individual crazy (and Cage gets a glimmer of realization of this too, when he and Cher argue outside his home after they return from the opera La Boheme). Is infidelity by men a way of avoiding thoughts of death. Dukakis believes so, and (oddly enough - although he is not totally convinced) Aiello. Chance reveals infidelity - Dukakis realizes early that Gardenia's odd behavior is tied to unfaithfulness, and Cher literally stumbles onto Gardenia and his girlfriend at the opera (but Gardenia also stumbles onto Cher's similar unfaithfulness to Aiello). But chance also causes misunderstandings: Fyodor Chaliapin stumbles on Dukakis walking with John Mahoney and thinks that she is having an affair.

There are lovely little moments in the film too. Cher's observation about flowers leading to receiving one. Her hearing the argument in the liquor shop and it's resolution. But best is the sequence of Louis Guss and Julie Bovasso as Cher's uncle and aunt Raymond and Rita Cappomaggi and Rita's charming and kind comment to Raymond about the effect of the moonlight on him. It is the sweetest moment of the entire film.

It is close to a flawless film. After seeing it over a dozen times in as many years I can only find two points that do not seem as smooth as they should be. When Cher is at Cage's bakery, his assistant Chrissy (Nada Despotovich) mentions how she is secretly in love with Cage, but has been afraid to tell him. Earlier she was slightly snippy towards Cher, who put her in her place quickly. Yet nothing seems done with this potential rivalry. At the same time, the fact that Cher forgets to deposit her uncle and aunt's daily business profits is brought in momentarily in the concluding seven minutes of the film - but just as quickly dropped. Was there supposed to be some plot lines that were dropped, besides one about Cher and Vincent Gardenia working at a homeless man's shelter as penance? It is a small annoyance, but I think it is just based on a desire to see more of this film because it is so very good.@@@1 -What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie.@@@0 -The bittersweet twist to this movie contains a wonderful element of romanticism that evokes an impetuous passion! These characteristics of idealistic imagery which "Moonstruck" possesses, spur on an end result of a resounding thumbs up verdict by virtually every prominent critic in Hollywood. Let me describe the circumstances to this film, simply put, they are "yesteryear". "Moonstruck" is a cohesive film which sparks the naivety of an old Italian neighborhood in New York City. New York City has always been one big melting pot that is galvanized by many bicker-some mannerisms which are indicative of typical New Yorkers, this includes a lot of Italian Americans living in New York as well! The mid and late eighties brought on an abrupt conclusion to many strong associations with various cultural stereotypes. Ethnicity polarization was a firmly embedded scourge in American history that was far more prevalent several generations before this movie was made. These generalizing proclivities still exist today, however, they are more mollified and less identifiable! For this Italian family of a bygone era, confusion, indecisiveness, agitation, and yes, of course, love, all have the comical camaraderie of an utterly human understanding to them! The kindred spirits with everyone in "Moonstruck" seems to be that of comprehending individual frailties. One might wonder about Cher playing the lead role, as she is more known as an entertainer than a big box office first billing star in a movie. In "Moonstruck", however, I think she was incredibly well suited to her role, and came off as thoroughly believable in a relatively unbelievable situation. All of the characters in "Moonstruck" are very rough around the edges, really tough, and not afraid to have a formidable duel with adversity. The most hilarious aspect to their lives is imperfection, and they are thoroughly aware of the fact that weathering the storm definitely serves a constructive purpose! I thought the acting in this movie was sensational. All relationships in this movie garner an auspicious potential to vividly illuminate because everybody knows how everybody else's basic nature is really like!! For this family, nothing is glamorous, nothing is pretentiously romantic, and nothing is overly emotional (just moderately so). The fact is, this entire family is plainly and perpetually afflicted and overcome by an extremely zealous and candid cupid in all of their lives. Taking moon beams literally can indeed have a pleasantly enervating impact on one's resolve, masqueraded mystique, and resistance to the proverbial am ore'. Thus signifying everything!! The homey and mercurial tenet in this film is basically one of ; Be honest, get angry; Be honest, get confrontational; Be honest, get distorted and emphatic; Most importantly; Be honest, and fall in love!! This is Cher's best performance ever as an actress!! Nicholas Cage, Danny Aiello, and Olympia Dukakis, were wonderfully flawed in "Moonstruck" Such performances by these three were perfectly appropriate for the kinetic energy of the characters in this movie! Director, Norman Jewison (Famous for "Cincinnati Kid", "Thomas Crowne Affair", and most famous for "In The Heat Of The Night" which won the academy award for best picture in 1967) depicts many keen and humanistic instincts in the process of purveying the deliberate incongruity to this film! I am Italian American in descent, (Partially anyways) Cher is not Italian, and, for that matter, neither is the writer nor the director! I guess since non-Italians like eating our food, they may as well use our culture to make a fabulous film too! It is refreshing to know that a film can be marvelous and have an incredibly happy ending!! For those of you who didn't like this movie, I just have one thing to say "Snap Out Of It!!" This movie "Moonstruck" is totally happy go lucky!! Totally eighties!! and Totally five stars!! See it!!@@@1 -i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of "movie"@@@0 -This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!

Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.

I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background!

There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.

None quite equals Moonstruck!@@@1 -It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.

In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.@@@0 -This movie is still an all time favorite. Only a pretentious, humorless moron would not enjoy this wonderful film. This movie feels like a slice of warm apple pie topped with french vanilla ice cream! I think this is Cher's best work ever and her most believable performance. Cher has always been blessed with charisma, good looks, and an enviably thin figure. Whether you like her singing or not - who else sounds like Cher? Cher has definitely made her mark in the entertainment industry and will be remembered long after others have come and gone. She is one of the most unique artists out there. It's funny, because who would have thought of Cher as such a naturally gifted actress? She is heads above the so-called movie "stars" of today. Cher is a real actor on the same level as Debra Winger, Alfre Woodard, Holly Hunter, Angela Bassett and a few others, in that she never seems to be "acting," she really becomes the character convincingly. She has more than earned the respect of her peers and of the movie-going public.

Everything about Moonstruck is wonderful - the characters, the scenery, the dialog, the food. I never get tired of watching this movie.

Every time single time I watch the scene where they are all sitting around the dinner table at Rose's house, I pause the remote to see exactly what delicious food Rose is serving. I saw the spaghetti, mushrooms (I think), but I can't make out whether they are eating ravioli, ziti? What is that main course? It looks wonderful and its driving me nuts!

Everybody in that family was a hardworking individual and they respected and cared about one another. The grandfather wasn't pushed aside and tolerated, he was a vital part of the family and he was listened to and respected for his age and wisdom. He seemed to be a pretty healthy, independent old codger too.

Loretta's mom wasn't "just a housewife," she was the glue that held the family together and was a model example of what a wife, mother, and home manager should aspire to be. She was proud of the lifestyle she had chosen but she didn't let it define who she was. High powered businessmen aren't as comfortable in their skin as Rose Casterini was. Notice the saucy way she said "I didn't have kids until after I was 37. It ain't over 'til its over." You got the sense that she had been the type of young woman who did exactly as she pleased and got her way without the other person realizing what had happened. She was charming, quick witted, and very smart. What a great mom!

I didn't actually like Loretta right away because she seemed like a bit of a know--it-all who wasn't really as adventurous and as in control of herself as she wanted others to think. She could tell others about themselves and where they had gone wrong, but she really didn't apply common sense to her own life. She was going to marry a middle-aged mama's boy simply because she wanted a husband and a sense of identity and purpose to her life. She was more conventional than her own mom. She dressed and wore her hair like a matron at a house of detention and seemed humorless and bored, but underneath you sensed that she was vulnerable and lonely and had a lot of love to give the right man. She would probably end up making an awesome mom too.

I could see in the future, a house full of Loretta and Ronnie's loud, screaming happy kids and Rose and Cosmo enjoying every minute of it.@@@1 -Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).

The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.

Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.

Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.

The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)@@@0 -There is nothing not to like about Moonstruck. I'm from a New York Italian family and I actually get a little homesick when I watch it. The actors & actresses, the plot, the subplots, the humor.. they were all fantastic. It starts a little slow, but a lot happens in that two days! I fell in love with LaBoheme because of this movie. On my list of favorite movies, Moonstruck is number 3. It's a "feel good" movie where you leave the theatre humming "that's amore" or repeating some of your favorite lines: "old man, if you give those dogs another piece of my food, I'll kick you till you're dead"; "Chrissy, bring me the big knife", "who's dead", "do you love him Loretta....., good because when you do, they drive you crazy because they know they can". I always put Moonstruck on when there's nothing good to watch because it makes me happy.@@@1 -The second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure ("This is the history of a failure" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.

What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting.

In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.@@@0 -Wonderful romance comedy drama about an Italian widow (Cher) who's planning to marry a man she's comfortable with (Danny Aiello) until she falls for his headstrong, angry brother (Nicholas Cage). The script is sharp with plenty of great lines, the acting is wonderful, the accents (I've been told) are letter perfect and the cinematography is beautiful. New York has never looked so good on the screen. A must-see primarily for Cher and Olympia Dukakis--they're both fantastic and richly deserved the Oscars they got. A beautiful, funny film. A must see!@@@1 -Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!@@@0 -Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****@@@1 -STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.

Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **@@@0 -'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.

How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.@@@1 -What an unusual movie.

Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.

Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.

I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.

But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.

Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.

I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare.@@@0 -This movie is brilliant in every way. It touches on the complexities of loving relationships in a meaningful way, but never lectures. The script never condescends toward any character, not even the hapless Johnny. It also and benefits from spot-on direction, production design, casting, and performances. The fact that Cher is so perfect in the film and is more unlike "Cher" than she has ever been is a wonder to me. I watch Moonstruck at least once a year and I just viewed it again this Christmas eve with my 16 year old twin daughters and they loved it as well. It has something for everyone with a heart and leaves you filled with joy in the end.@@@1 -I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.@@@0 -Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.

The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).

MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time.@@@1 -At the beginning of the movie, the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. However, the story was so very slow and boring. And then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox, which leads to tragic events. We live in the forest, and frequently see foxes. One thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild, and enjoy them from afar. This movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it, in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. I do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. Even after the terrible events with the main fox, the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. Does she never learn her lesson? And there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox, which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. What a disappointment this movie was. And what a horrible story it tells. The final narrated dialog was so stupid, by which time my wife and I were screaming at the TV! I absolutely hated this movie, and would never recommend it to anyone!@@@0 -This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential.@@@1 -If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.

This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the "screen consummation" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.

The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.

April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space.@@@0 -So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass.@@@1 -This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing.

I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.@@@0 -Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past.@@@1 -'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.

There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.

Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.

The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.

While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.

- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au@@@0 -I just saw this cartoon for the first time and recognized the caricatures of famous black entertainers... Cab Calloway, Bessie Smith, (not Josephine Baker or Sophie Tucker, who was white), Thomas "Fats" Waller, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Stepin Fetchit (notwithstanding) Louis Armstrong and the chorus girls are out of the famed "Cotton Club" in Harlem. True... stereotypes are there, but this was the way it was... and these cartoons were meant as adult entertainment at your local cinema before the main feature.

Harmann & Ising cartoons tended to be more "cutesy" and more upscale, (after all... we are talking about M-G-M) than the standard animated short done over at Warners, Paramount, Universal, Fox, RKO or lowly Columbia. Even Disney's very early Mickey Mouse had loads of barnyard humor before Uncle Walt cleaned him up just before he went "Technicolor".

Disney had some cartoons with caricatures of black entertainers as well... for example, 1937's Silly Symphony "Woodland Cafe". But we have to remember that these films are part of a certain time and place. 50 years from now... clips of the Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park will be also scrutinized, analyzed... and even vilified by future viewers.@@@1 -The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .

No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series@@@0 -This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH*@@@1 -Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.@@@0 -The Old Mill Pond is more of a tribute to the African-American entertainers of the '30s than any denigration of the entire race (Stepin Fetchit caricature notwithstanding). Besides who I just mentioned, there's also frog or fish versions of Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, Joesphine Baker, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, and Louis Armstrong. This Happy Harmonies cartoon from Hugh Harmon and Rudolf Ising is very entertaining musically with perfect characterizations all around. They all sound so much like the real thing that half of me thinks they could possibly be. If not, they're certainly very flattering impersonations. Even the lazy, shiftless Fetchit characterization gets an exciting workout here when he gets chased by a tiger as "Hold That Tiger" plays on the score. Highly recommended for fans of '30s animation and jazz music.@@@1 -I saw this movie a couple years back. I could'nt sleep and there was nothing on. So I peeped it. What really gets me is it makes no sense and thats why its disturbing. Richard gets tied up in chicken wire and Jarvis starts making out with Richard's girl while she's unconscious. Then Jarvis's buddy Troubador is playing some stupid song on his guitar. By the next morning it shows Richard's girl talking to Jarvis and Trouby and then she walks back to Richard and looks at him while he's still tied up. Then they play some happy music and the movie is finished. I mean what happened? Did they brake up? And what was she saying to those 2 guys(Trouby and Jarvis)? Its to puzzling and to poor to. I can't stand movies that are disturbing and don't make sense. This was the worst film i've ever seen since the 90's version of Lord of the Flies.@@@0 -A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it!

The plot just barely dodges being called "corny". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.

So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy.@@@1 -When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so.@@@0 -This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will.@@@1 -This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?@@@0 -Blonde and Blonder has Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards in almost every scene and if you want more from a movie you're being utterly unreasonable. It feels like a late era Carry On, when the series was no longer blazing trails, but was still more funny than not, think Behind or England and you won't be too far off the mark. Pamela and Denise are bubbly, charming and clearly aware this isn't a masterpiece they're making, although you can give me it over lots of things I'm told to like. The supporting cast are energetic, even if some of them aren't particularly good; I can't see a couple of duff turns in a movie that's already practically forgotten making much difference to anything, so just smile. I really do think Blonde and Blonder is ace and I hope you hate me for it.@@@1 -I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary "We Are The Weird" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, "No... no... please... don't..." Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as "Trouby" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) "Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)@@@0 -This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.

It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. *****@@@1 -Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar.

Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10@@@0 -This movie is so cheap, it's endearing!!! With Ron Liebmann (Major Vaughn) providing the most entertaining on-screen diatribes in film history. I own 2 copies of this movie on video...on one, Ralph Macchio is caught actually cracking up in the background at Major Vaugn while he is ranting at "Hash". Obviously they forgot to edit this mistake out of the film, but it goes to show just how funny the movie is, when the actors themselves can't keep a straight face!!!@@@1 -A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say "What's on TV tonight?" and we'd tell him "Strangler of the Swamp" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days!@@@0 -For a "no budget" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.

The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!

I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors.@@@1 -a movie that attempts to be far smarter than its makers are capable of producing. the movie twists and turns through miriad plot "surprises" at a desperate attempt to kep the audience guessing, offcourse puncturing the "plot" with steamy scenes they thought would help it along.

james belushi is involved in this pseudo-intellectual attempt and just sleep walks through the movie. the same applies for the other "actors". the plot is quite silly and tacky. whih in itelf is not such a crime, but towards the end, the tremendous plot-twists get very tiresome and boring.

however, the movie does manage to generate some interest in the middle. in all worth a lazy watch on a really boring day, but don't fret if you miss this one.

a rather lame 4!@@@0 -I may very well be one of the few who really stuck to this film. I also saw this movie when it came out, and I agree with the last post that Up The Acedemy was way ahead of its' time. The humor in the film itself is pure MAD magazine. I don't see why MAD stand behind this feature. It was also one of the few films of the early 80's to have a killer accompanying soundtrack with the punk and new wave bands that were emerging from L.A. at the time. I own the soundtrack and I play it constantly to this day. What can I say? There are definitely worst movies out there. I don't consider Porky's to be as funny as Up The Academy, there are some really good laughs throughout the film, and the jokes fall on either stereotypes or getting laid. Hey, nobody said this was going to be The Maltese Falcon.@@@1 -Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character.@@@0 -This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it!@@@1 -Please humour me if you will, for a minute while I read you the back of the ALLEY CAT VHS box. It says that:

In this part of the city every street is a dead end- on every corner something to buy- in every alley another way to die- To survive you're got to be the best- just like the Alley Cat. Alley Cat- this lady owns the night. On the streets where even the predators become victims she knows how to survive- Cross her and you've run out of luck. Alley Cat- This animal is aroused.

Now isn't that one of the most pathetic blurbs you've ever heard in your life? Whoever wrote that must be insane if they thought such a awful description could tempt us into viewing the video. Yet unfortunately, whichever faceless individual was responsible for that tragic use of English was doing their job only too well.. the movie contained within the little plastic case IS as bad as it sounds, and then some.

Karin Mani plays the title role, and the script basically tells her during every given scene to either a) Pout like a goldfish b) Kick male butt or c) Show off her feminine 'attributes'. No complaints about the latter, but in terms of the other two.. let's just say she isn't much of an actress, and is even less convincing as a martial arts expert. But even Meryl Streep with Cynthia Rothrock's body (what a scary thought) would fail to save this movie. The unfolding of the plot is boring beyond belief, as we get one ineptly directed fight sequence after enough, pausing only for hysterical courtroom shenanigans and the occasional gag-inducing love scene with the interestingly named Robert Torti. The camera-work also follows a similar path of shame, with far too many unneeded close-ups and continuity errors abound.

The part that I think really sums this scum-bucket of a movie up is where our heroine is sexually assaulted, and finds herself testifying in front of a corrupt judge while her rich-kid rapist leers at her from the box. Not only does he get off scot-free despite the overwhelming evidence against him, but she herself is then jailed for daring to protest about the verdict in front of his Honour. Behind bars, she then has a group shower, a lesbian crush, a couple of cat-fights and a nice, sweaty game of volleyball before being released on bail to continue her battle. This ten-minute section has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and the screenplay grinds to a halt to encompass it. I can only imagine the producers wanted to add a bit more T&A to the mix, and came up with this needless sub-plot as a means to achieving that end.

Which kinds of begs the question, is this an exploitation film, or a serious drama? Neither, is my response to that.. it isn't sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fans of Troma-style cinema, and it certainly doesn't make the grade as an exploration of one woman's fight against the system.. purely because it is so appallingly made. So who on earth would want to see it? Lunatics, I guess.. or IMDb reviewers who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while trying to get to sleep. Sadly on this occasional I failed, and the horrors will stay with me for quite some time. Don't make the same mistake I did. Have a hot milk, or something.. 1/10@@@0 -Misfits at a military school? Hmmmm, sounds funny, maybe offensive to some. You have the characters there, the Arab thief, the sex crazy teen, the smart mouth, the pot smoker, and not to forget, the guy who burns things. Throw in a strict no nonsense Sergent, a homosexual Sergent and one sexy ammunition teacher and it makes one crazy film adventure.

I have seen this film and it is funny, because the comedy is revolved around the fact that if you try to work together, things get done.

These band of misfit students at Weinberg Military school have been placed in here because, as Sgt Liceman quotes "because you are outcasts, embarrassments to your families and communities, disgraces." One of Ralph Macchio's earlier performances before the Karate Kid and My Cousin Vinny, with appearances from Barbara Bach as well, this film appeals to teens and young adults.

Great soundtrack keeps the film moving.@@@1 -An apparent vanity project for Karin Mani (who?), as a hottie Charles Bronson going around wiping up the 'scum' that mugged her parents, or grandparents or something, and impressing young hunks with her karate skills. In a pivotal scene she intervenes to stop a rape and a moron cop throws HER in jail, so after a couple cool shower scenes and some abortive prison-dyke seduction she has to take the law into her own hands blah blah blah. I guess there were a lot of movies like this? The script is dumber than usual if you can believe that. Mani comes off as exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co-produce her own Death Wish starring role, and I find that type sporadically endearing, but the movie is an ungainly apparatus. Competent actors would be wasted on the scumbag roles here, and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing-incompetent DA and a judge that has got to be the producer's uncle.@@@0 -I LOVED this flick when it came out in the 80's and still do! I still quote classic lines like "say it again" and "you said you'd rip my balls off sir". Ron Leibman was hot and very funny! Although it was underrated and disowned by MAD, I have to say that this little gem will always be a treasure of mine and a movie that I would take with me if sent to a deserted island! I only wish that someone would release the DVD because my VHS tape is about worn out! If you like cheesed out comedy, this is definitely for you and should be considered a cult classic! It is military humor at it's best and worse! Rent it if you can't own it!@@@1 -One of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill.

Woeful down market attempt to cash in on the Death Wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging Bronson. Acting is terrible, sets are cheap, the baddies are, well, bad. Identification with any of the characters is unlikely.

Only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity, a smattering of which is full frontal. Other than that, you can leave it...@@@0 -I first caught the movie on its first run on HBO in (probably) 1981 and being 15 years old I thought the movie was hilarious. I remember NOT seeing the Alfred E. Neuman depictions shown in the theatrical trailers. When MAD Magazine satired the movie and abruptly halted half way through with apologies from the "usual gang" for lowering themselves to satire such a piece of crap, I just assumed they were poking fun at themselves, which I'm sure they were, but to seriously find them ( and Ron Liebman ) so embarrassed to remove their names from any credits, I was quite surprised. Surely there are many worse movies to be associated with. Watching the movie on video now (at age 32) with the MAD references restored, I still get a kick out of it. And being a Ron Liebman fan (Hot Rock, Where's Poppa?) I think it's his crown jewel of performances (SAY IT AGAAAAIN)@@@1 -BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form.@@@0 -back in my high school days in Salina Kansas, they filmed something called "The Brave Young Men Of Weinberg" locally, and the film crews were rather prominent for weeks. eventually, we learned that the film was "Up The Academy", and was a bit ummm, "lower brow" than we had been led to believe.

I had to see it, since I was there, and the local audiences seemed less than pleased at the showing. I was 17, and thought it was a rather artless attempt at a post "Animal house" type of comedy, right down to the fart jokes.

Watched it many times since, and my opinion has mellowed a bit. it's dumb, but at times it catches a bit of the "mad" magazine humor, at least as well as most "Mad TV". Ron Liebman might hate it, but he is nearly perfect, and unforgettable. For me, my favorite moment would have been a brief scene on Santa Fe avenue, where I had parked my car, while I was buying some guitar strings. Too bad my Pinto's brief appearance, usually seems to get cut for TV. haven't seen the new DVD, but if my old pinto is visible, they've got a sale.@@@1 -I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second.

"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.@@@0 -This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!@@@1 -This movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic, mindless, explicit bragging about sexual exploits and F... in almost every sentence. Like a good plot? Like comedy? Like romance or other human values? Stay away from Whipped. It was so bad I left after about half an hour. I saw two kids slip in that looked to be about 10 -- very harmful -- this deserves an X.@@@0 -I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here.@@@1 -Bad acting. Bad writing. This was a poorly written film. It's too bad because it had some potential. It's not even close to American Pie or Something about Mary as previous comments might have you believe. Rent it at dollar night from you local video store if you're kind of bored.@@@0 -Heartland was in production about the same time as Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate - Heartland cost a fraction to make but is 10 times the piece of film.

Heaven's Gate was "the biggest and most expensive ($40 mil in 1980!) Hollywood flops of all time, its failure resulted in the sale of the United Artists studio to MGM" -imdb entry

Heartland cost a few hundred thousand dollars and benefits from great writing, direction, photography and acting. It easily draws you into the beauty, joys, hardships and sorrow of pioneer life.

It's sad that Hollywood sometimes would pour millions into turkeys (based on a director's single big hit) and neglect such a wonderful story.@@@1 -I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.

I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.

In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?

[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]

The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!

The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")

What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.

Rating: 3@@@0 -Fabulous actors, beautiful scenery, stark reality. I won't elaborate on all of the other reviewers' comments because you get the picture! However, the movie isn't for the squeamish. Reality is slaughtering pigs and other livestock in order to survive. I also have Elinore Randall Stewart's homestead book. I read it several years ago, I have to reread it, since I just watched the newly-released, remastered DVD of the movie.

I tried to buy the video for several years, finally bought it used from a video store that went out of business. But Yippee! The DVD is now for sale, I purchased it on amazon.com. Not cheap, but well worth it to me. This is a movie I will be watching until the end of my days!@@@1 -"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.@@@0 -First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor.@@@1 -The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.@@@0 -"Heartland" is a wonderful depiction of what it was really like to live on the frontier. The hard work and individual strength that were needed to survive the hardships of the climate and the lack of medical care are blended with the camaraderie and the interdependence of the settlers. The drama was especially meaningful because the story is based on the diaries of real people whose descendants still live there. It was also nice to see the west inhabited by real people. No one was glamorous or looked as if they had just spent a session with the makeup or costume department. Conchatta Ferrell is just wonderful. She is an example of the strong, persevering people who came to Wyoming in the early 20th century and let no hardship stand in their way of a new life in a new land.@@@1 -This movie lacked... everything: story, acting, surprise, ingenuity and a soul. Fifteen minutes in, I was staring at the screen saying, "How could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl)?" Another fifteen minutes in, I was praying for as much Amanda Peet as possible. When a bad movie quietly rears it's ugly head, eye candy is a nice consolation. But there wasn't much of that! Cheated on all fronts!@@@0 -I saw this 25 years ago on PBS. It was very difficult to watch. So real. To watch this small family struggle in the winter was heart rending. No time for courting: fate has thrown us together and we put our shoulders to the grindstone and make it work. This was based on the woman's actual diary, which I read many years later. She said in her diary that her parents died when she was little and all their bothers and sisters had to work the farm to feed themselves. She learned to mow, which was not lady-like. She was afraid that no prince charming would want a woman with sun-browned, calloused hands, but this husband was so happy that his new wife knew how to mow, and she was happy to do it. Both were widowed and together they worked to build a new home. It was so, so sad when the baby died. Of course, if they had it today, I am sure it would have been fine. That only makes the tragedy extra sad. I was crying so hard. But then they went out and successfully pulled out a new calf. Spring is on its way, and life goes on. In her diary, she did have two more boys and they lived.@@@1 -This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.@@@0 -Haven't seen the film since first released, but it was memorable. Performances by Rip Torn and Conchata Farrell were superb, photography excellent, moving story line and everything else about it was of the highest standard. Yet it seems to have been pretty much forgotten

Maybe because UK is an odd market for it but I haven't seen the film on TV or video, which is sad. Has it had more success in US where it might rightly be seen as a quite accurate historical drama?

Always reckon that 50% of a good film is the music and though I'm not certain I think the title theme was a simple but moving clarinet solo of "What a friend we have in Jesus". The film then went on to disprove that! Am I right or wrong?@@@1 -For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.@@@0 -This is a movie that should be seen by everyone if you want to see great acting. Mr. Torn and Ms Farrel do an outstanding job. I think they should have it on TV again so a new audience can enjoy it. Wonderful performances.

It gives you a real feel of what the pioneers had to go through both physically and emotionally. Great unheard of movie.

It was done when Ms. Farrel was very young. I had always thought of her as a comedian, but this certainly is not a comedy and she is just wonderful. There is very little dialogs, but that just make it seem more real. Mr. Torn as always is a great presence and just his breathing has great feeling. I must see movie.@@@1 -"Whipped" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe "The Grinch." It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called "High Fidelity." Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, "Whipped" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a "comedy" can get.@@@0 -I saw the latter half of this movie about a year ago and was very happy to finally find it available on DVD. Recently, I watched several of the reality series on PBS about ranching, etc. None of them came as close to telling the story as this movie does. Based on REAL reality, pulling no punches, bleak, happy, tragic and enlightening, this is a movie that should be shown to students or to anyone interested in early frontier life. Fine acting on the part of both Rip Torn and Conchata Ferrell add to an well done script. The opening credit states that it was done though funds supplied through the National Endowment for the Humanities. If this is the kind of product taxes could go to I would be happy to see more. I highly recommend it and would encourage people to tell a friend if you have seen it and enjoyed the film.@@@1 -Hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. I thought nothing would ever dethrone Last Action Hero, but this does easily. The movie is about 3 single guys who meet on Sundays to discuss their sexual escapades from the weekend. A fourth guy - who is married and - that used to be a part of the group shows up and talks about what he and his wife do. Nothing works in this movie. The jokes are not funny but they are repeated throughout the movie. The big kicker at the end of the movie is laughable. Avoid at all costs.@@@0 -This western is done in a different manner than most others. Realism is the key here. Conchata Farrell comes to Wyoming to work for Rip Torn on his ranch. How this is presented makes for a most interesting slice of Americana. I would have preferred to see this on the big screen rather than on tape, but it's worth a look to see just how life was back in the real west. Cinematography is excellent. Solid 9. Torn & Farrell excel in this movie.@@@1 -I just watched this movie last night, and I HAD to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. In a word - don't. I seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a Quentin Tarantino/Eddie Murphy phase, i.e. every other word was a curse word. I don't have a problem with profuse cursing, as in "Good Will Hunting", provided it helps to delve more into the characters. In this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional *gasp* or laughter from the audience. The three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype, the wall street jerk, the coffee house jerk, and the "I'm-Not-Gay-Just-In-Touch-With-My-Feminine-Side" slightly-less-of-a-jerk. You just don't give a damn about any of them! They are all shallow, unredemable losers who you WANT to see lose. For those who dare, this film does have a couple funny moments, the very beginning, and the very end. The toilet/vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda "Uh, yeah" way. Really though, I would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies.@@@0 -Portrays the day to day stark reality of survival on a ranch in the old west. Outstanding acting by both principal actors. This doesn't even feel like a movie...you feel like you're there. Animal activists should beware...many scenes are obviously not just realistic...they are real.@@@1 -I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.@@@0 -Excellent. Gritty and true portrayal of pioneer ranch life on the Western plains with an emphasis on the woman's role and place. A moving film, lovingly made, and based on real people and their actual experiences. Low budget, independent film; never made any money. Definitely not the romanticized, unrealistic Hollywood version of pioneer life.@@@1 -First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? Trainspotting. Masturbation? Hmm. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Pie, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says "it's none of my business but . ..." and 30 seconds later Mia says "why is this any of your business?" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots.
It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see Boomerang. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for The Tao Of Steve. But anyone who thinks Whipped is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.@@@0 -This is one of the best films ever made. It is a realistic depiction of rural ranching life which was a big part of American History. The setting is 1906 Wyoming where life had not changed much since the previous century. The film keeps your interest without the added Hollywood myths. The whole family can see this movie and be intrigued about how life was like in America when it was mostly a rural nation. With this film, you will escape the present and witness the daily life of 100 years ago. In a beautiful, scenic environment you will see the hard physical work that was required to survive, as well as the constant worries and concerns of the elements and the market pressures that will make a difference between success or failure. See this movie and experience life as it was for most of our nation's history. This film is worth your time to see. My only question is - why aren't there more films like this one?@@@1 -Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.

This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.@@@0 -I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of "indie" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.

Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a "small" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.

The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. "I can't talk to the man," Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. "You'd better learn before winter," replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).

Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.

We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.

This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten.@@@1 -Every Sunday, a trio of buds get together at a NYC diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. Sometimes they're joined by a newlywed ex-comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. They're unabashed horn dogs/corn dogs and Mia, who witnesses them on the prowl, decides that they need to be taught a lesson, dammit. Ergo, she'll date and dump - why not? All three of them!

Gasp. What a wild idea. What a radical, naughty gal. Women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. As much as men do, even!

There is one solitary laughable element in "Whipped" - namely the fact that not once, during the amigo's detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash, do the other customers in the diner turn around and say, "Dude, we're trying to EAT here." Indeed, a heh-heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. A big fat Kermit the Frog "Sheesh" to that.

It's truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting, a smart, cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop-out ending.

P.S. - 30 "whip-oosh" sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase "You go, girl". It was tired in 2000, and it's tired now.

Save your time and watch some "Sex and the City" reruns...@@@0 -Don't say I didn't warn you, but your gonna laugh. Probably enough to hurt your stomach. Sure it's got some blood splattering, all in good fun though. So, it's got no budget, who needs a budget when you got a script like this.

Take the time and check this out. Well worth a two hour viewing. If everyone could laugh as much as I did during this movie the world would be a much happier place to live.

@@@1 -I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.

I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.

I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.

And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.

But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.

3/10@@@0 -An excellent series, masterfully acted and directed, but unloved (I am told) by Mr Deighton and withdrawn by him after a single presentation. It is now only viewable in private collections, and via the British Film Institute at special request. Very unfortunate, as Ian Holm's nuanced portrayal of the weary-but-determined Bernard Samson is superb; one of his very best performances. The supporting cast, including the young Amanda Donohoe and Hugh Fraser, are superb. With Mel Martin playing the conflicted and traitorous wife, and Michael Degen as the mercurial Werner, the story positively simmers with the tragic and fateful personal consequences of the great game.@@@1 -Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable "whipping". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, "Whipped" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think "The Man Show" is Emmy material.@@@0 -I watched the presentation of this on PBS in the U.S. when it originally aired in 1988 (?). Assuming the miniseries was available on DVD I purchased first editions of all three books last year. Since then I have been searching for the series on internet movie sites. Today I found this web site. I will give up the search.

I too would like to buy this complete - 26 episodes - miniseries. After buying the DVDs I would read each book, then watch the episodes for that book. That is what I did with John LeCarre's Karla trilogy and Larry McMurty's Texas ranger trilogy.

Does anyone have any suggestions for great books or book series that became very good TV miniseries - or movie series - that are now available on DVD?@@@1 -A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie@@@0 -This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence.@@@1 -I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.@@@0 -I agree with everyone who says that this series was the best of the 'spy' genre. My husband and I were captivated by it when it first aired in the US and watched every episode. I tried at that time to purchase the series (I did tape all of it) but was told by WGBH that it was not available. I even considered writing to Ian Holm to see if he might have a copy! Like others, I purchased and read the Deighton series (in part to understand the complicated plot.) If the original version ever comes available on DVD, I'll be among the first in line to snap up a copy. Ian Holm's portrayal of the vulnerable but courageous Bernard Samson was amazing. (He is always amazing.)@@@1 -It just seems bizarre that someone read this script, and thought, "This is funny! I mean, it's so hilarious it just has to be made!" Who was this person? Is he or she the person really responsible for this? Are they the one's who owe me for my time, more so than the director/writer?

This film stinks in most every way possible. There's no one shred of good dialogue, and not one likable character. And the story...

I prefer the 2nd worst movie ever, Hulk Hogan's "No Hold's Barred" to this by quite a considerable degree. It seems almost Shakespearen in comparison.

The ending is padded out with several minutes of outtakes, and it's still under 80 minutes. The outtakes include cast members laughing at the 'hilarious' mistakes they've made, and things that went wrong on the set of this 'comedy.' Glad to see someone laughing in someway, with some connection to this 'film.'

Nothing in this film is funny. Nothing. It just goes on, and on. It's truly that lame. I love films that are so bad they're good. This is so bad it's...something, but I don't know what, and hopefully will never find out.

Amanda Peet doesn't suck outright, and is in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film. But, that really means little.

Avoid at all costs.@@@0 -Soap Opera about a small town married woman (Kay Francis) who works at the local newsstand, performs as leading lady in her local playhouse, but dreams of becoming a star on Broadway. When a famous actor who is a ham, a windbag, and a womanizer to boot, arrives in town she visits him in his room with dreams of him giving her tips to stardom - he pretends his valet is his "manager" tricking her into believing she has all it takes but "experience" to become a big star. Her husband finds out and punches the guy resulting in the actor's unexpected death - which leads to a murder trial and even more unexpected: a life prison sentence for hubby. Next thing you know she's joined a traveling Burlesque show in hopes of one day making it to Broadway and making enough money to get her man's freedom - all the while her baby is sleeping in a trunk!

This film has a pretty interesting plot, well, a bit far-fetched perhaps, but very melodramatic (with tons of melodramatic music to make sure you get it) - all *greatly* enhanced by the strong, emotional performance given by Kay Francis - she just makes this film. Also helping here is the well-done acting by Minna Gombell in her role as a "getting close to forty" older lady who works the burlesque and befriends Kay. Worth seeing, especially for Kay Francis fans.@@@1 -Final Score: 0 (out of 10)

***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***

Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat.

But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about "Whipped" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the "star" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.

On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or "twist", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the "idea" that an empowered women can play men "just as they get played". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent "In the Company of Men" - or better yet, "There's Something About Mary". This movie wants to be a "edgier" version of "There's Something About Mary" so bad you can see the sweat.

The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as "satirical" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: "F**k you" Character 2: "Oh yeah, well f**k you" (repeat)

And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. "Whipped" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at "the marquee scene", "cult classic" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides.

But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like "Friends" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. "Whipped" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products.

The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back.

@@@0 -Mendez and Marichal have provided us with a serious, cogent and painful analysis of the social, spiritual, economic and political crisis that 108 years of colonialism have spawned in Puerto Rico. A beautiful island with the most hospitable people I have met and yet because our nation refuses to faces its imperial responsibilities, Puerto Ricans are allowed to wither and die.

The spiritual crisis that the colonial situation of Puerto Rico has created, if undermining families, and the basic institutions that sustain any society. Corruption is rampant to the extent that people are not paying taxes (which has led a fiscal crisis for this nation) and a sense of cynicism and distrust permeate the island's culture.

Fortunately, a grant allowed this painful yet powerful film to be produced.

A must see . . .@@@1 -This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.@@@0 -"Thieves and Liars" presents us with a very naturalistic depiction of the levels of corruption that affect many Puerto Ricans and force them to make difficult if not impossible choices about their and their loved ones' lives. The cast is excellent, considering that some are non-professional actors; an excellent choice that augments the level of reality in the film. The photography propels the story without intrusion, as it should be in this type of film. The script captures the idiosyncrasies and attitudes of the "Boricuas" in a very deep way. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a documentary! Watching this film you feel as if you've secretly entered the real Puerto Rican society and stand invisibly watching it implode. I loved it!@@@1 -It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.

The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.

HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.

The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.

Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.

It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.@@@0 -And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid.@@@1 -This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.

I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.@@@0 -If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called "justice" is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. "Ladrones y Mentirosos" is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the "Copper Wing Award" for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival.@@@1 -This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts.@@@0 -A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films.@@@1 -This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.

Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.

@@@0 -One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931!@@@1 -While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.

As for the impressions of the pilot...

The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.

Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the "feel" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a "generic" Trek story with the themes of "exploration" and "first step towards space" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series.

The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the "action". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of "the wind" and being on "the sea" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.

We had the feeling more that humans were the "freshmen" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!

I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.

I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.

You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.

To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-)@@@0 -I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in "The portrait of a lady" as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10@@@1 -EXTREMITIES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.

Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...

Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation.@@@0 -(spoilers?)

while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time.

I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.

8/10

Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10@@@1 -hello boys and girls... this isn't your regular movie review, because this is going to be the cold. hard. truth. are you serious? this movie sucked so many balls i couldn't keep them out of my mouth! they might as well have sprayed me in the eye with monkey semen. you'd need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie.

the plot was very lacking. the actors were terrible. i rewound the dance number several times and had to pause it even more because i was choking on my own spit. do boys, everyone!

peace R&H besties4lyf@@@0 -The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license.

Which might one aver?

In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.

In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.

How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?

The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.

That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.

So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.

In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.

For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.

Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.

David Broadhurst@@@1 -This is no doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This makes your run of the mill TV movie look like Reservoir Dogs. Based on a book by the one and only Britney Spears and her mother this is trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from Virginia Madsen (I hope you got paid well) to save it. The story of a red neck country gill who wins a scholarship in a prestigious music school is little but a vehicle to pedal Ms Spears pants music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way. There is nothing good going on here with all the beats as predictable as night following day. Never ever again.@@@0 -I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist.@@@1 -First of all, this plot is way overdone - girl wants to make it, everyone loves her, snobby girl intervenes, all looks lost, girl pulls through, everyone loves her again etc. Throw in the fitting in thing, an attractive male crushing on the heroine, plus single-parent troubles and it's so predictable that you can practically recite along with it.

Second of all, I really hate how they keep on dissing classical music. They send out the message that everyone involved in classical music is uptight and snobby and close-minded - in fact, I don't recall the quote exactly, but I remember at one point in the movie, Holly says, "Why do they have to be so uptight...so classical?" It's really insulting how label classical music in this way.

Third, I've went over it dozens of times, but the only reason that I can think of for making this movie is to promote Britney Spears. there just isn't any point at all.

And oh yeah, while the actress who portrayed Holly (I'm not sure whether that was really her singing or not) had a reasonably good voice, it wasn't as amazing as they were making it out to be - especially when she was belting. She was oversupporting the whole time.

1/10 stars.@@@0 -I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).

Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.

Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.

Overall i thought this film was fantastic.@@@1 -This movie is entertaining enough due to an excellent performance by Virginia Madsen and the fact that Lindsey Haun is lovely. However the reason the movie is so predictable is that we've seen it all before. I've haven't read the book A Mother's Gift but I hope for Britney and Lynne Spears sake it is completely different than this movie. Unless you consider ending a movie with what is essentially a music video an original idea, the entire movie brings to mind the word plagiarized.@@@0 -The movie looked like a walk-through for "Immoral Study". Most likely I never got much involved with the burning need of the female artist to immortalize male nudes and thus all that fuss about "Now, who drew this penis?!" sounded a bit gratuitous. Dialogues in this movie are rather dreadful, albeit visually this movie got its moments. I almost dig it when Tassi got into painting a mental picture but then movie weered back onto penises. Highly recommended to those who has not seen one in a while.@@@1 -It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.@@@0 -This is a film about 17th Century Italian artists and one artist in particular, a woman Artemisia, an unheard of profession for females at that time, and she dared to paint the male nude detailing his unique musculature.

The camera work is principally indoors for that is where the artists mainly worked. There are some great shots. Close-ups by candle light suggest the beautiful work of the classical painters and it is fascinating to watch the painters and their students supported by elaborate scaffolding brushing in details of religious frescoes. It is not surprising that the artistic elements of the film (costumes,faces, make-up) are quite superbly authentic because the Italian churches have preserved all these details in their frescoes for centuries. The beautiful Artemisia is urged by her father to study under the great Florentine artist, Tassi, who has become expert in the art of perspective and landscape painting (something very new) but the unsuspecting Artemisia is introduced to more than new techniques in painting. After posing for her, Tassi violently rapes her. Her father is outraged. Court proceedings follow.

This romantic drama has a fairly simple story with an unsatisfactory ending. The outstanding feature of the film is its artistic presentation and attention to detail. Scenes such as women running across a field with the wind billowing their voluminous clothing add wonderful effects.

Artemisia says she paints to please herself; her father paints to please others. As for this film, it will please most, I think.@@@1 -can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).

the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.

The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.@@@0 -I'm normally a sucker for romantic films which are well-filmed and well-acted out. This is a romantic (period) film set in 17th-century Italy, but filmed in French with English subtitles. The fact that it is a period film means it will inevitably be slower-paced than films set in the modern day era, so it Will bore some. If you can overlook that fact, it is actually a really good film. The scenery, the costumes, and the cinematography are beautiful, and the main actors and actress are very compelling in their portrayals, projecting the intensity of the emotions that are running through the plot. The story is like a sad love story with an unhappy ending. Its easy to believe that this is an accurate portrayal of the real-life characters. In spite of the fact that I was really moved by the main characters and the storyline, I decided to check out the validity of the story and found out that the main theme of the movie's story - that of an sad unfinished love story - was completely fabricated.

In real life, Artemisia was raped by Tassi initially, rather than submitting to his advances willingly and passionately as the movie had portrayed. She continued to have sexual relations with him only because he had repeatedly promised to marry her. When they were in court, he had *not* admitted guilt of rape out of pity for Artemisia's torture (unlike what the movie portrays). In reality, he had tried to portray Artemisia as a loose, promiscuous woman with insatiable sexual urges. In the movie, his sister testified in court that Tassi had a wife and had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, and Tassi's character was all the while made to appear as if his sister had been slandering him regarding his alleged affair with his sister-in-law (although he admits to having had a wife back in Florence). Needless to say, in reality it wasn't really like that at all. In fact, far from it. Tassi was really responsible in the planned murder of his wife, whom he had begotten from rape. And to add to that, Tassi really had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, impregnating her in the process, but all this wasn't really mutual as well - again, he had raped his sister-in-law before.

So now we have a clear picture of the real Tassi as a multiple sex offender, what do we make of the film Artemisia's portrayal of him as a lover? We take it as an attempt to make this movie into a romantic film... that this film was never made to be historically accurate... Apart from these points just mentioned, there were other historical inaccuracies like in its interpretation of Artemisia's art (in real-life, she was never really influenced by Tassi's painting style, and she was actually considered a much better painter than Tassi ever was.) One thing remains true and its the fact that Artemisia Gentileschi has been credited as the first woman painter in history, and although her mastery of the art rivalled many of her male peers, she had always experienced difficulty in getting enough credit for her work because of her gender as a woman, in 17th century Italy.

Enjoy this film for its own sake, for it is a pretty good romantic drama, but take its historical references with a grain of salt.@@@1 -I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!@@@0 -Artimisia was on late last night. At first I didn't think I would like it, but seeing I didn't feel like sleeping yet and nothing else being on, I continued watching and felt myself intrigued by the young Artimisia, a virgin, pure and passionate. Her romance with the older Tassi envoked recognisable feelings. Even though the film is based on a very romantisised level and not reality, I loved it a lot more than the usual biographys or costume drama's. Great play, great camerashots, great music and texts. I loved it and I want more of it! :-)@@@1 -Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she "had the range", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh.@@@0 -Artemisia Gentileschi, the daughter of Orazio Gentileschi, showed an early promise as a painter. Taught by her father, Artemisia was born in an era that denied talented women the right to have their work seen side by side art created by men. Her tragic life is chronicled in this biographic film directed and co-written by Agnes Merlik.

Having read the novel "The Passion of Artemisia" by Susan Vreeland, made us investigate more into the life of this woman, her work, and her legacy. We also read Mary Garrard's "Artemisia Gentileschi", which should be a must read book by all art lovers.

"Artemisia" presents the fictionalized facts we have read about showing the early life of the young woman as she starts to paint. She was clearly influenced by the work of her father, by Caravaggio, Agostino Tassi, and other Florentine painters of that period. Her relationship and love affair with Tassi is the basis of the film. Artemisia, unfortunately couldn't go as far as she could have because of the prejudice against women in the arts. It didn't help either she caused a scandal where she is accused of being raped by Tassi. She had to go to Rome in order to distance herself from that unhappy time of her life.

Valentina Cervi makes a beautiful Artemisia. She is a gorgeous creature who awakened passion in men. Michel Serrault plays Orazio, her father. Miki Maojlovic is seen as Tassi, the man who wanted Artemisia, but ended up in jail. Emmanuelle Devos appears for a moment.

The film has a glossy finish that the camera work of Benoit Delhomme captures in all its splendor. The scenic locales of the film offer an idea of what inspired that school of painting to show in their canvases. The music by Krishna Levy serves well what we see. Agnes Merlik directed with sure hand showing a visual style of her own.@@@1 -Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.

So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....

Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... "exterminator" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.

Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable "exterminator" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.

But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days.

The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie?@@@0 -This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best.@@@1 -Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works

1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.

2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...

in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers

Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!@@@0 -Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!@@@1 -The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.

But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.

When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.

Don't waste your time.@@@0 -Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.

This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery.@@@1 -I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival.

It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both.

Think Larry Cohen.

Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.

The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around!

Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious.@@@0 -The case of the Scorpion's tail is a highly stylish giallo directed by Sergio Martino, who appears to be a giallo master second only to Dario Argento.

Ernesto Gastaldi wrote this fabulous who-dunnit, quite complex but ultimately very satisfying and entertaining murder mystery. It also makes sense in the end, a big plus, 'cause that's not always the case for these giallo's, as they tend to stretch credibility with their endless red-herrings and ultimate solutions. Here, the less you know about the plot, the better.

Pure giallo trademarks present here are the beautiful cinematography, the catchy music score, the gorgeous females (Anita Strindberg is a goddess), brutal murders, black gloved murderers and explicit sex scenes to name a few.

In most parts it's decently acted, Goerge Hilton his usually suave self and others do fairly well. Martino directs with a sure hand, keeps things tight and atmospheric with some terrific set pieces.

If you're a giallo fan, this is a must see. If you like well written and suspenseful thrillers in general, this comes highly recommended.@@@1 -This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes "The Attack of the Monolith Monsters." This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.@@@0 -A fine Martino outing, this is a spirited and enjoyable giallo with fine performances from good looking cast and principally the two leads, George Hilton and Anita Strindberg.

For me the jig-saw puzzle of a plot is so convoluted and confusing you just sit back and enjoy rather than try to anticipate. Just when all seems resolved we are again taken on a further series of twists, enjoyable twists, it has to be said.

Sexy with plenty of gory kills this a well paced movie with London, Athens and Greek coastal locations. A super finale set upon Aegean rocks wraps things up and much fun was had by all.@@@1 -Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.

This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.

@@@0 -Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip….initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo.@@@1 -The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film.@@@0 -Sergio Martino has impressed me recently with his Giallo classics 'The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh' and the unforgettably titled, 'Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key' - but even so, I wasn't expecting too much from this film. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail doesn't get mentioned as much as the aforementioned titles when it comes to classic Giallo discussion - but I don't know why, because this is at least as good as those two! Dario Argento may be the 'king' of Giallo, but with the five films that he made - Sergio Martino surely isn't too far behind. In some ways, he even surpasses the master. All of Martino's films were released prior to the jewel in Argento's crown, the magnificent Profondo Rosso, so back in the early seventies - Martino was the king! The plot here follows the idea of murder for profit, and follows the insurance payout of a wealthy man. His wife inherits $1 million, and it isn't long before there's people out for her blood! When she turns up dead shortly thereafter, an insurance investigator and a plucky, attractive young journalist follow up the case.

The Case of the Scorpion's Tail may not benefit from the beautiful Edwige Fenech, but it does have two of Martino's collaborators on board. Most famous is George Hilton, who worked with Marino on The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and All the Colors of the Dark, along with a number of other Giallos. Hilton has a great screen presence, and every time I see him in an Italian thriller; it becomes obvious why he is repeatedly cast. The beautiful Anita Strindberg, who will be remembered from Your Vice is a Locked Room, stars alongside Hilton and excellently provides the classic Giallo female lead. Sergio Martino does a good job in the director's chair once again, with several beautiful scenes - the best of which taking place in a room bathed with green lighting! The score by Bruno Nicolai (Wardh) excellently sets the mood, but it is the script that, once again, is the driving force behind Martino's success. Ernesto Gastaldi, the writer for Martino's other four Giallo, has put together a script that is thrilling while staying away from the common Giallo pitfall of not making sense; thus liberating this film from the rest of the illogical genre. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a quality Giallo film, and yet another success for the great Sergio Martino. If you like Giallo, you'll love this!@@@1 -The plot certainly seemed interesting enough. How can a real-life brutal murder be turned into a truly boring movie? Well, you can watch "Wonderland" and find out.

I had heard of the Wonderland murders before this film was released and found it to be an interesting true story of some genuinely sadistic people. Unfortunately, there is zero character development, so we never get a chance to understand why any of this was done or get a good sense of the interrelationships between the characters. The pace of the direction was very tedious. This all leads to an extraordinarily boring movie.

Given that Dawn Schiller - a central character as Holmes's girlfriend - was an associate producer and that Holmes's wife was a consultant on the film, we should have had the opportunity to gain some real insight into the characters.@@@0 -Sergio Martino's The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a scenic giallo from the early 70's heyday of the genre. An explosion on an aeroplane results in one million dollars in insurance money for a bereaved but unfaithful wife. The money is subsequently snatched by a black-clad assassin and a series of brutal murders follow.

Scorpion's Tail plays the mystery element, written by giallo specialist Ernesto Gastaldi, fairly straight. But, being a giallo, the murders themselves are memorable and well-staged. In fact, the violence in this movie is very strong in places - a scene with a broken bottle being particularly graphic. The emphasis on the violence no doubt influencing the giallo genre to move into more and more extreme territory. But like the best films in the genre the brutality is offset by a good score and attractive photography. The music by Bruno Nicolai is at times reminiscent of Ennio Morricone's avant-garde work in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage but is also strong in its own right. The photography is helped by the nice use of foreign locales - in this case London and Athens - where Martino manages to get in, respectively, the Houses of Parliament and the Acropolis! There is also some inventive camera-work too, the most effective being the use of slow motion in a sequence where a woman runs towards the door where the maniac is prowling outside. In this particular scene Martino has the killer hack through the door with a knife in a manner influenced by Dario Argento's Crystal Plumage, however, it also has the killer attempt to flick the latch open with the blade of a knife which is something repeated later by Argento in Suspiria. So Martino's film is influential in its own right.

This is a good solid giallo that both genre and non-genre fans can appreciate. The performances are good and the production values are fine (although the plane explosion is, shall we say, somewhat low-budget!). The DVD release by NoShame is nice. It has both the English and Italian language options which is a real bonus. However, it is worth pointing out that at times you need to be a fast reader to fully appreciate the English subtitle option. This applies to both the movie and the documentary in the extras. This is a minor point though, the DVD release is a worthy addition to any giallo collection.@@@1 -Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.

The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the "He did it" zone.

There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here.@@@0 -La Coda Dello Scorpione (a.k.a. Case of the Scorpion's Tail) was director Sergio Martino's follow-up to the wonderful giallo Strano vizio della Signora Wardh. This is the quintessential giallo, featuring all the aspects fans of the genre have come to know and love. Twisty plot, beautiful girls, black gloves, sharp blades, and a bit of gore all come together to make one heck of a piece of Italian exploitation.

A group of gialli favorites, both in front of and behind the camera, work to make this one of the best non-Argento gialli around. There's the aforementioned Martino adding his touches as director, giallo great Ernesto Gastaldi as the writer, Bruno Nicolai creating the music, and a host of giallo stars and starlets, such as George Hilton, character actor Luigi Pistilli, and the fetching Anita Strindberg.

With all this talent behind it, does Scorpione deliver? You bet. The film works on many different levels. It's a thrilling murder mystery, a tense and violent horror film, and a suspenseful thriller. All in all one of the best gialli around.

Martino definitely knows what fans want when it comes to gialli. At some points in the film, he almost seems to be channeling Argento in his approach. For example, there is a direct rip-off of the scene in Bird With the Crystal Plumage where the killer tries to break through the door, that actually outdoes Argento's flick.

Are there any problems with the flick? Hmmm... only minor ones. First, any scenes that aren't following the murders or the budding romance between the two leads begin to bore. But just before you fall asleep, the killer will pop out of nowhere and you'll be right back in the swing of things.

Also, towards the end, the twists get a little too bizarre. I mean, what purpose did the scorpion pins really serve? If you don't play close attention to the dialogue, you could easily become lost with the twisting, weaving storyline.

But these minor quibbles aside, La Coda Dello Scorpione is a tense, suspenseful, classy and all around entertaining film for giallo fans. Seek it out!@@@1 -Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.

A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).

But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.

To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.

In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.

I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.

This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?

Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.

@@@0 -Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. "La Coda Dello Scorpione" aka. "The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant "Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key" of 1972, followed by "Torso" (1973) and "The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.

The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...

"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards!@@@1 -I am wanting to make a "Holmes with Doors" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: "kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day.@@@0 -I'm really tempted to reward "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" with a solid 10 out of 10 rating, but that would largely be because I think Italian horror cinema of the 1970's is SO much better than the cheesy crap I usually watch. But even without an extra point for nostalgia, this is STILL a genuine masterwork and earning a high rating for its excellently convoluted story, uncanny atmosphere, blood-soaked killing sequences and superb casting choices. In my humble opinion this is actually Sergio Martino's finest giallo, and that has got to mean something, as "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh", "All the Colors of the Dark", "Torso" and "Your Vice is a Locked Room and only I have the Key" are all top-notch genre achievements as well. But this film is just a tad bit superior with its ultra-compelling plot revolving on an insurance fraud gone madly out of control. Following her husband's peculiar death in a plane explosion (!), Lisa Baumer promptly becomes the suspicious owner of one million dollars and she's eager to leave the country as soon as possible. Due to the bizarre circumstances, the insurance company puts their best investigator Peter Lynch on the case and he follows her to Greece. There, Lisa becomes the target of many assaults and the case's mysteriousness increases when it turns out several people are hunting for the money. I'm always overly anxious when briefly summarizing gialli because I don't want to risk giving away essential plot elements. In "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail", the events take an abrupt and totally unexpected turn before the story is even halfway, and I certainly don't want to ruin this for you. Many red herrings follow after that, but Sergio Martino always succeeds to stay one step ahead of you and, even though not a 100% satisfying, the denouement is at least surprising. It's also a very stylish film, with imaginative camera-work and excellent music by Bruno Nicolai. Everyone' s favorite giallo muse Edwige Fenech oddly didn't make it to this cast (she stars in no less than 3 other supreme Martino gialli), but Anita Strindberg ("Lizard in a Woman's Skin", "Who Saw Her Die?") is a more than worthy replacement for her. The charismatic and hunky George Hilton is reliable as always in his role of insurance investigator and – duh – ladies' man deluxe. If you're a fan of giallo, don't wait as long as I did to WATCH THIS FILM!!!!@@@1 -I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).@@@0 -"Dance, Fools, Dance" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.

Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.

It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and "Dance, Fools, Dance" is no exception.@@@1 -Anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series, or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. The Borg does not come around until Q brings the Enterprise to the Gamma sector, the Klingons are NEVER seen until Kirk encounters them, the NCC-1701 was the FIRST ship to carry the Enterprise name....need I go on? Berman and Pilliar have made a mockery of Gene Roddenberry's creation. After he died, they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. No wonder Majel Barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. I don't blame her for not being involved with this mess. Poor Bakula. He's a great actor, as are the entire cast. I like them all, but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. Just check the ratings. I think more people watched Deep Space 9 (which was untimely canceled).@@@0 -Well made and stylish while still ultimately making sense this thriller would work better for non giallo fans to get interested in the genre than the later Argento entries which go overboard in all directions.

For fans of these crazed Italian thrillers, they will appreciate George Hilton and the turns his character takes and what he's put through. The camera-work is fresh with dashes of graphic violence and odd, but appropriate choices and a good not overblown music score as well. The less you know about the story the better to make it work.

The only thing lacking in keeping this from being a great Sergio Martino directed giallo is that the story doesn't have that extra sexual or psychological, or both element to put it over the top. It's more a routine mystery, the characters are well defined but live or die according to the plot not according to their own virtues and flaws.

The recent DVD (2005) release is beautiful looking and definitely the way to see the film, unless these ever get art house screenings which seems unlikely.@@@1 -Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton.@@@0 -"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" has all the elements that are necessary in order to make an effective giallo movie. The story is standard giallo. When a man dies in a plane crash his wife (Ida Galli) collects a $1 million life insurance policy. The widow heads to Greece for the payout but a series of gruesome murders follow her. There are plenty of suspects, including a tenacious investigator (George Hilton) from the insurance agency and the widow's lover. Director Martino keeps the story moving at a fast pace while the viewer tries to guess the identity of the killer. Anita Strindberg (also memorable in "Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key" and "Who Saw Her Die?") is a stunning-looking heroine. It's one of Martino's best films.@@@1 -Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.@@@0 -After dipping his toes in the giallo pool with the masterful film "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" (1971), director Sergio Martino followed up that same year with what turns out to be another twisty suspense thriller, "The Case of the Scorpion's Tail." Like his earlier effort, this one stars handsome macho dude George Hilton, who would go on to star in Martino's Satanic/giallo hybrid "All the Colors of the Dark" the following year. "Scorpion's Tail" also features the actors Luigi Pistilli and Anita Strindberg, who would go on to portray an unhappy couple (to put it mildly!) in Martino's "Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key" (1972). (I just love that title!) I suppose Edwige Fenech was busy the month they shot this! Anyway, this film boasts the stylish direction that Martino fans would expect, as well as a twisty plot, some finely done murder set pieces, and beautiful Athenian location shooting. The story this time concerns an insurance investigator (Hilton) and a journalist (Strindberg, here looking like Farrah Fawcett's prettier, smarter sister) who become embroiled in a series of grisly murders following a plane crash and the inheritance of $1 million by a beautiful widow. I really thought I had this picture figured out halfway through, but I was dead wrong. Although the plot does make perfect sense in this giallo, I may have to watch the film again to fully appreciate all its subtleties. Highlights of the picture, for me, were Anita's cat-and-mouse struggle with the killer at the end, a particularly suspenseful house break-in, and a nifty fight atop a tiled roof; lots of good action bursts in this movie! The fine folks at No Shame are to be thanked for still another great-looking DVD, with nice subtitling and interesting extras. Whotta great outfit it's turned out to be, in its ongoing quest to bring these lost Italian gems back from oblivion.@@@1 -Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.

Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.

By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.

I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.@@@0 -I saw this film as it was the second feature on a disc containing the previously banned Video Nasty 'Blood Rites'. As Blood Rites was entirely awful, I really wasn't expecting much from this film; but actually, it would seem that trash director Andy Milligan has outdone himself this time as Seeds of Sin tops Blood Rites in style and stands tall as a more than adequate slice of sick sixties sexploitation. The plot is actually quite similar to Blood Rites, as we focus on a dysfunctional family unit, and of course; there is an inheritance at stake. The film is shot in black and white, and the look and feel of it reminded me a lot of the trash classic 'The Curious Dr Humpp'. There's barely any gore on display, and the director seems keener to focus on sex, with themes of incest and hatred seeping through. The acting is typically trashy, but most of the women get to appear nude at some point and despite a poor reputation, director Andy Milligan actually seems to have an eye for this sort of thing, as many of the sequences in this film are actually quite beautiful. The plot is paper thin, and most of the film is filler; but the music is catchy, and the director also does a surprisingly good job with the sex scenes themselves, as most are somewhat erotic. Overall, this is not a great film; but it's likely to appeal to the cult fan, and gets a much higher recommendation than the better known and lower quality 'Blood Rites'.@@@1 -Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.

If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...

So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.@@@0 -Say what you want about Andy Milligan - but if his family was even 10% as deranged as the one in this film, well then I guess he could have turned out worse. Unfortunately, the video print of this film contains sex scene inserts originally shot by the distributor to boost the picture's box office appeal. Several times during the film Milligan's ugly camerawork and silent film music abruptly ends, and suddenly good-looking stand-ins for Milligan's homely actors take over and start doing it to psychedelic 60's guitar rock. It's pretty easy to fast-forward through if you're trying to pay attention to Milligan's original film, which, unfortunately, is missing quite a bit of action that was cut to make room for the added sex scenes. What remains, however, is still compelling stuff. I don't think I've ever seen a more hateful mother in any film before.@@@1 -***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers

There are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.

The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget.

The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us.

She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!'

Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.

Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves.@@@0 -First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat ("I'm going home in a bag!"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning.

If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!

Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).

-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....

-Ramsay "RC" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer@@@1 -All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared.

When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing.@@@0 -After a long hard week behind the desk making all those dam serious decisions this movie is a great way to relax. Like Wells and the original radio broadcast this movie will take you away to a land of alien humor and sci-fi paraday. 'Captain Zippo died in the great charge of the Buick. He was a brave man.' The Jack Nicholson impressions shine right through that alien face with the dark sun glasses and leather jacket. And always remember to beware of the 'doughnut of death!' Keep in mind the number one rule of this movie - suspension of disbelief - sit back and relax - and 'Prepare to die Earth Scum!' You just have to see it for yourself.@@@1 -Imagine that you are asked by your date what movie you wanted to see, and you remember seeing a rather intriguing trailer about "The Grudge." So, in good faith, you recommend seeing that movie. It is the Halloween season, after all. And it did boffo box office this past weekend, so it must be pretty good...so you go.

And you're actually in a state of shock when the movie ends the way it does, and you hear yourself audibly saying, "that can't be the end of the movie...." But, alas, it is.

And imagine coming out of the movie theater being embarrassed and ashamed for recommending such a dog of a movie. You think that your date thinks you're a bonehead for suggesting such an atrocity, and your suggestion will certainly end a promising relationship. Actually, it was so bad that both of us cracked up laughing at how bad it was. I see no future for Miss Gellar in the movies, and suggest that she sticks to television in the future. Actually, it won't be long before she is consigned to flea-market conventions selling Buffy memorabilia, and it can't happen soon enough, if you ask me. Horrible, horrible, horrible. The plot didn't make sense; continuity was terrible. It's apparent that the whole ending was contrived to have a "Grudge II--The Return of 'Cat-Boy'."@@@0 -There are few really hilarious films about science fiction but this one will knock your sox off. The lead Martian's Jack Nicholson take-off is side-splitting. The plot has a very clever twist that has be seen to be enjoyed. This is a movie with heart and excellent acting by all. Make some popcorn and have a great evening.@@@1 -If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.@@@0 -This movie is just plain silly. Almost every scene has some bit of humor: running gags, slapstick, and great jokes. The acting isn't that great, and the plot is cliche, but the jokes more than make up for that. If you have a chance to see this movie, I recommend that you do.@@@1 -Gee, what a crappy movie this was! I cannot understand what people find so scary about "The Grudge". The director plays one trick (I'd have to admit a very good one, that is brought to life very stylized) and then he repeats it for the rest of the movie over and over again. As a consequence I startled a few times in the first quarter of the movie, but once I knew the drill I practically fell asleep as The Grudge grew more and more predictable by the minute. To conclude, I can say that there are a lot better movies in the genre to begin with, that the so-called predecessor "The Ring" was way scarier and that buying a ticket for "The Grudge" is a waste of money.@@@0 -This movie is to Halloween what the hilarious "Christmas Story" is to Christmas: both are relatively low-budget, no-big-name-stars type films...and both are two of the absolute greatest and funniest movies available, both seasonal CLASSICS!!! "Spaced Invaders" comes galloping out right from the start with warmth and humor and a superb cast of characters...all five goofy Martians, Klembecker the Realtor, Russell the deputy, Vern at the "fuel dispensing depot" and so many more! You just have to see this movie to believe it, and, like "Christmas Story", it just keeps getting better and better with each viewing, and you pick up on fun little things each time!! MOST DEFINITELY A TEN!!!@@@1 -Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!@@@0 -This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.

The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity.

Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.

If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.

@@@1 -Despite a decent first season this series never came close to realizing its potential. Set as a prequel to the original "Star Trek" series it was doomed almost from the start by an executive producer, Rick Berman, who felt compelled to artificially limit and constrict the definition of what a "Star Trek" series could be (which made this futuristic show increasingly anachronistic from a dramatic standpoint). The actual show-runner, Brannon Braga, didn't help matters by his uninspired and tired rehashing of previous Trek episodes and careless disregard of the franchise's internal mythology (it was painfully obvious early on that he was in it only for the paycheck). Never have I seen a series' that so consistently did a disservice to a cast of talented actors (Jolene Blaylock excepted)last so long. It is as if this entire series was produced in bubble existing outside the contemporary television landscape where the audience (even a Trekker audience) is more demanding and sophisticated in their dramatic wants and desires. Unfortunately it appears as if Berman and Braga have succeeded in convincing the higher ups at Paramount that "Enterprise" suffered from "franchise fatigue" and that its core audience was did not walk away but was driven off. Produce a quality offering that lives up to the high ideals and standards of its predecessors and they (the audience) will come.

Simply put, In a TeeVee universe where we are given shows like "Battlestar: Galactica" and "The Shield" the powers-that-be must give the viewing public a "Star Trek" that measures up and is dramatically competitive. It is just that straightforward and easy.@@@0 -I found the memorable quotes searching for video clips; they forgot one of my favorites...

Old Person 1: You know, I remember the first time they played that thing.

Old Person 2: You remember pterodactyls.

Old Person 1: And I can remember you fell for that, hook line and sinker.

Old Person 2: Oh, I did not.

Old Lady: You did so. You put a big bucket on your head and took off with them army boys to fight Martians.

Old Person 2: Ain't you dead yet?@@@1 -this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it.@@@0 -This movie is funny and suitable for any age. It is definitely family-type entertainment. The cast does a fine job playing folks in the mid-western town of Big Bean, Illinois. Where we must assume nothing ever happens since the excitement (pre-invasion) of the decade is the new (and only) exit ramp from the Interstate. The location appeals as suitably boring and totally unlikely for the invasion of earth by Martians. But these Martians are totally inept, despite being well-equipped with an arsenal of suitably ghastly and deadly weapons... including one set on eradicating the Martians, too! The Martians dead-pan their lines and throw in just the right accents to make us the viewers and the locals wish to help them... leave earth. J. J. Anderson playing the very young Halloween carnivorous duck has just great lines. Watch this movie for laugher and entertainment; thought-provoking it isn't. But subtle and enjoyable it is.@@@1 -This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.

This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.

Not recommended.@@@0 -Like the great classic Bugs Bunny cartoons, this movie has humor at different levels. I just introduced this to my 10 year old daughter and 11 year old son. Both enjoyed the movie - busting out laughing quite a few times... and my daughter is not much of a sci-fi fan. The movie kept me laughing despite having seen a few times... the adult-level humor (that is, humor that adults will get simply because of greater life experiences, no baudy or R-rated stuff to be found here) keeps the movie equally enjoyable for adults. For example of the adult level humor, the Martian voices are based on characters of different movies/actors. The Martian pilot, Blaznee, has the voice and mannerisms of Jack Nicholson; the scientist, that of Peter Seller's Dr. Strangelove. The special effects are surprisingly good for this film. The lack of top 10 actors actually works in the movie's favor, and the actors/actresses play their part well - in fact I would say the producers picked out actors and their skills for the roles' needs over box-office draw power (an excellent example is Wayne Alexander's "Vern" character). I had to write this review... the kids are playing this for the 3rd time in 4 days over dinner right now. Good for a rainy day or a late night weekend there's-nothing-on-and-I'm-bored movie.@@@1 -Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more.@@@0 -Anyone who does not find this movie funny, does not understand simple comedy. This movie is not a complex comedy, it is full of one liners, and sight gags, and will make anyone who wants to laugh, laugh... The alien who is doing a Nicholson impression will crack you up!@@@1 -My husband and I went to see this movie, being the horror movie buffs that we are. Two hours later I found myself wanting both my money and time back. I was so disappointed. The teasers for this film basically contained the best points of the film. There was nothing very scary about the film other than good timing on surprise entrances, etc. I found most of the 'scary' parts to be more comical than anything. After viewing other movies based on the works of Japanese writers, I have to conclude that what is deemed frightening in Japan is not what is frightening here in the US. My advice: If you are a fan of true horror movies, save yourself the pain of sitting through this one. I can't really say that I would recommend renting it either, unless you have a free rental coming to you.@@@0 -If the creators of this film had made any attempt at introducing reality to the plot, it would have been just one more waste of time, money, and creative effort. Fortunately, by throwing all pretense of reality to the winds, they have created a comedic marvel. Who could pass up a film in which an alien pilot spends the entire film acting like Jack Nicholson, complete with the Lakers T-shirt. Do not dismiss this film as trash.@@@1 -This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<@@@0 -Normally the best way to annoy me in a film is to include some reference to Orson Welles. But here is a sci-fi comedy quoting the War of the Worlds broadcast.... and it is gold! The very concept of a small bunch of diminutive,aggressive and stupid aliens being mistaken as kids in Halloween dress is magnificent. Don't be fooled by the notion that because it seems like a kids' movie it is unsophisticated - it isn't, there's a lot of hidden treasure... A gem!@@@1 -OK when I saw the previews for this movie I thought it looked really scary and was quite excited to see it as were the group I was with. Now living in America especially during this election I see some very deceiving things but I have to say these previews were towards the top of list. I don't see how so many people could be scared by this movie. I only really noticed two real jump scenes and only jumped at one. The whole movie was extremely predictable and perhaps that messed up some of the jump scenes for me. As for the sound effects so many to be so frightened of I thought they were comical at best. Oh and the uhh catboy where did that come from and why? The worst noise in the whole movie had to be the weird groaning. How does that scare someone? I can make that noise easily. Now don't get me wrong I have always loved all those really bad scary movies that your just laughing the whole way through but I didn't even think this one had that going for it it was just plain out bad.@@@0 -This is cult stuff. My friends and I get together once a year to enjoy this movie. Its very funny and very dry . I've seen this move dozens of times and have yet not to enjoy it.The actors are funny and it gets better with every viewing! If you enjoyed "Morons from out of Space" you will love this. A great play on War of the Worlds. I love the Red-Neck rampage to get the aliens, the bug on the hood, the DOD, the Heat Seeking Populous Annihilator, the Mine Field, the Red Camo, breaking the speed limit by 1800Mph! "I'll get the bucket!" Very Funny. I would love for this to come out on DVD! Forget the negative reviews see it for yourself!@@@1 -I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.

"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury." That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the "curse" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour – by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:

-person walks into house

-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard

-person goes to investigate

-sound starts to get loud

-person sees a ghost

-loud scream and/or cat screech

-cut to black

Before the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end "with a loud scream and a cut to black." We were never proved wrong.

The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?

Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the "scariest movie ever made." I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE?@@@0 -Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !!@@@1 -I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10.@@@0 -Laughs, adventure, a good time, a killer soundtrack, oscar-worthy acting, and special effects/ animitronics like none other, what else could you want in a movie? If you see this will be on the telly, WATCH IT, otherwise, run out now to RENT IT!!!@@@1 -Lynch. The man has some really great stuff! He knows how to disturb us, then reward us by getting us think in different ways. This, however, is altogether different. Dumbland's reward is 1% absurd comedy, earned by enduring 99% stupidity. I may have laughed once, but somewhere around episode 4 I just started watching on fast-forward. Didn't miss a thing. I felt relieved when it ended, and that's part of the point with this series. It's an annoying series about annoying characters in annoying situations, rounded out with annoying animation, voices and sound. But recognizing this and its other absurdist qualities still fails to make Dumbland worthwhile.@@@0 -This is a gem of a movie not just for people who like fun and quirky premises, but who love the history and traditions of Sci-Fi and Classic Hollywood movies. Each alien of the Martian crew is the embodiment of a classic Sci-Fi character or member of Hollywood royalty and it's pure pleasure watching them bounce of each other and the residents of Big Bean.@@@1 -I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows.

For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation.@@@0 -Joan Crawford had just begun her "working girl makes good" phase with the dynamic "Paid" (1930). She had never attempted a role like that before and critics were impressed. So while other actresses were wondering why their careers were foundering (because they were clinging to characters that had been the "in" thing a few years before but were now becoming passe) Joan was listening to the public and securing her longevity as an actress. The depression was here and jazz age babies who survived on an endless round of parties were frowned upon. Of course, if you became rich through immoral means but suffered for it - that was alright.

This film starts out with a spectacular house boat party. Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) is the most popular girl there - especially when she suggests that everyone go swimming in their underwear!!! However, when Bonnie's father has a heart attack, because of loses on the stock market, both Bonnie and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) realise who their real friends are. After Bob Townsend (Lester Vail - a poor man's Johnny Mack Brown) offers to do the "right thing" and marry her - they had just spent a night together when Bonnie declared (with abandon) that she wants love on approval - she starts to show some character by deciding to get a job.

She finds a job at a newspaper and quickly impresses by her will to do well. Her working buddy is Bert Scranton (Cliff Edwards) and together they are given an assignment to write about the inside activities of the mob. Rodney also surprises her with the news that he also has a job. She is thrilled for him but soon realises it is bootlegging and he is mixed up with cold blooded killer, Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Rodney witnesses a mass shooting and goes to pieces, "spilling the beans" to the first person he sees drinking at the bar - which happens to be Bert. He is then forced to kill Bert and after- wards he goes into hiding. The paper pulls out all stops in an effort to find Bert's killer and sends Bonnie undercover as a dancer in one of Jake's clubs. (Joan does a very lively dance to "Accordian Joe" - much to Sylvie's disgust). The film ends with a gun battle and as Rodney lies dying, Bonnie tearfully phones in her story.

This is a super film with Crawford and Gable giving it their all. Natalie Moorehead, who as Sylvie shared a famous "cigarette scene" with Gable early in the film, was a stylish "other woman" who had her vogue in the early thirties. William Bakewell had a huge career (he had started as a teenager in a Douglas Fairbanks film in the mid 20s). A lot of his roles though were weak, spineless characters. In this film he played the weak brother and was completely over-shadowed by Joan Crawford and the dynamic newcomer Clark Gable - maybe that was why he never became a star.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 -I saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from NYC. After 30 minutes, I said to him," You've got to be kidding. Is this some sort of joke?" He thought it was good. I told him that I thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. "What was it supposed to be?" I asked. "A propaganda movie made for children?" The plot is stupid. The acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life, love or even afterlife, of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view...need some psychiatric help. Please, if someone tries to get you to stick this in your DVD or Video player, consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer...it won't destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. If they had made Razzies in the '40s, this would have won in every category. (PS. It also goes under the dubious sobriquet of "Stairway to Heaven.")@@@0 -I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered "normal" behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise.

The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.

It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend.@@@1 -There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.

"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.

While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.

Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.

Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.

Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.@@@0 -i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's "Home on the Range" rendition is awesome.

very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10.@@@1 -In film, I feel as though it should be more than just art. I think it should be more than that, a way to tell a story on screen. This short from David Lynch tells a story but not much of one. I felt that it was funny but too bizarre to be a comedy. It is good film-making but there really isn't anything else to it. As I've said before, I am a huge David Lynch fan but I get frustrated by some of his work because I don't see a need for it at all. This is definitely my least favorite thing he has done so far but I know he's still got a ton of talent and I am excited to see what he has in store for us in the future. If you like Lynch, check this out but don't be surprised when you don't like it very much.@@@0 -This is a thinking man's silly movie. If you don't expect Star Wars and enjoy British humor this might just turn into a cult classic for you as it has for my wife and I - from casting the "voice" of Cary Grant and Jack Nicholson as martians to the overly simplistic populace of Big bean this is a movie that you can either sleep through or watch carefully and enjoy either way.

It's not for everyone, but if you enjoy relaxing easy humor that takes a quick mind to see the joke as it slips by you will enjoy this movie.@@@1 -David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.

Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).

I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.

Worth seeing by Lynch fans.@@@0 -If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,

just people with a sense of humor.

For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.@@@1 -Let's be honest here: the only reason anyone bought this, the only reason anyone reviewed this, and the only reason anyone could possibly claim to enjoy this is because David Lynch made it and because you want to have David Lynch's children. But guess what? Even David Lynch can produce a piece of crap.

Maybe Lynch wanted you to transcend normality and experience absurdity in-itself as a pure subject-of-knowing. Maybe the atrocious, cacophonist sounds, and chicken-scratch visuals are supposed to imply something about humanity's place in the world, about our relation to the Real, about the absurdity of it all.

Instead, it just says one thing to me: I just lost $20.

If I wanted offensive for the sake of offensive, I could crank Hansen on high and let me ears bleed. If I wanted absurd for the sake of absurd, I could just take a dump on a plate and watch that for 33 minutes.

There is a single redeeming quality to Dumbland -- it is meta, meta funny. That is, it is so bad that it isn't even funny because it's so bad. This fact, however, is a little funny.

If you hate yourself and hate your money, then buy Dumbland. If not, spare yourself the agony.@@@0 -Being from a small town in Illinois myself, I can instantly relate to this movie. Considering the era it was made in, the townsfolk look uncomfortably like a lot of people I grew up with. Yes the plot is so-so. And yes, the Acting is not going to get nominated for an Oscar anytime soon. But that isn't the point. The point is to suspend reality and just have FUN. And this movie has Fun aplenty. From the greedy,uncaring banker to the well meaning,but dimwitted deputy, this movie was made to poke fun at the SciFi genre and small town living at it's best. Who can't smile at the sight of the Enforcer Drone or the Vern Droid? and I LOVED the FarmZoid. Wish I had one when I was growing up. Overall, considering the technology they had available at the time, this is a pleasant romp into one's childhood, when you could sit back on a Saturday afternoon, Popcorn in hand, and laugh at the foibles of small town living. This is a movie I would watch again and again, if for no other reason than to poke fun at myself and my small town ways.@@@1 -A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -"I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!" The small town sheriff laments.

"This happens a lot in Chicago?" His deputy asks.

Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of "Big Bean, IL". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.

The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie.@@@1 -You wouldn't expect a movie like this to be good, and it isn't. It's a no budget, ultra violent zombie movie filmed with a bad looking hand-held camera...and it's hilarious. The actors obviously have never acted before and it shows in their terrible hilarious readings. There is no plot to be seen. The little plot I could find seemed to be that a government experiment escaped and a group of zombie seems to be terrorizing a couple families. The gore effects are actually some of the most sickening I've ever seen. It seems the gore effects people raided a butcher shop for all the body parts, and many scenes involve zombies dismembering people and eating their organs. It's a funny and sickening film, and it's about as bad as you can get in terms of any movie.

My rating: BOMB/****. 90 mins.@@@0 -"Spaced Invaders" is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, "SI" has really the potential of a comedy like "Monsters Inc." or "Spaceballs". Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum!@@@1 -A terrible amateur movie director (no, not Todd Sheets), his new friend and sister explore a cave. The friend and sister fall in and get rescued. Meanwhile a gang of horribly acted girls are defending their 'turf'. Whatever the heck that means. This film and I use the term VERY loosely is so bad that it's.. well bad. The humor is painfully unfunny, the "action" merely sad. Now I've seen some atrociously awful 'horror' films in my time & failed to grow jaded in my approach to watching low-budget films, yet I still weep openly for anyone who choose to sit through this. ONLY for the most hardened maschocists amongst you. but the rest run away FAST!!

My Grade: F@@@0 -I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once.@@@1 -Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.

The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.

All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.

The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.

Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period.@@@0 -This movie is not for everyone. You're either bright enough to get "it" or you're not. Fans of sci-fi films who don't take themselves too seriously definitely will enjoy this movie. I recommend this movie for those who can appreciate spoofs and parodies. Everyone I've recommended this film to has enjoyed it. If you enjoy Monty Python or Mel Brooks films, you'll probably enjoy this one. The voice characterizations are done in a tongue-in-cheek manner and the one-liners fly fast and furious.@@@1 -and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie.

What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.

What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.@@@0 -Looking at some of the negative posts, you really have to wonder what some people do for fun....

I was lucky enough to see the film during its all-too-brief theatrical run. The audience laughed its heads off. I'm watching a tape of it as I type and it's still dang funny!

It's also got a sweet side, with unexpected turns of genuine pathos. The late, great Royal Dano is especially effective as the lonely, down-on-his-luck farmer Wrenchmuller. Ariana Richards and J.J. Anderson are great as the lead kids. And the actors in the Martian suits, although limited to mime, do a great job

Another thing to look for is the background details. The film is full of homages, pastiches, and references to other SF and fantasy films. Take a look at the Martian costumes next time. One of them is wearing a Marty McFly costume, another is a Ghostbuster, a third is in a House Atreides uniform, and a fourth is wearing a Last Starfighter flightsuit.@@@1 -OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.

There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.

Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.@@@0 -After mistaking a Halloween re-broadcast of Orson Welles' classic radio adaptation of WAR OF THE WORLDS for a real Martian invasion, a group of moronic Martians shows up on Earth looking to conquer only their plans go awry as they find themselves truly out of their element and in reality all alone.

This really is often quite good and funny, with some decent lines (just check the memorable quotes) to boot. It will most likely appeal to Sci-Fi fans. This has passed the test of time for me as seeing it again recently it proved much better than I expected it to be. Despite a cast made up of no-name stars, this may just be the funniest Martian invasion ever put to film. Interestingly enough, the Martians themselves seem to represent almost every classic Action Hero/Sci-Fi Hero stereotype there is (cool 50s teen, fighter pilot, fearless astronaut, brave soldier and kooky scientist). Fun for the whole family.

"Prepare to DIE! Earth Scum!"@@@1 -I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it!@@@0 -Don't listen to fuddy-duddy critics on this one, this is a gem! Young rich Joan and her brother find themselves penniless after their father dies - and now they have to work for a living! She, naturally, becomes a reporter, and he, just as naturally, a driver for the mob! By wild co-incidences their careers meet head on, thanks to gangster Clark Gable. In the meantime there is the chance for a moonlight underwear swim for a bunch of pretty young things and for Joan to do a couple of risque dance numbers (with all the grace of a steam-shovel).

But none of this is supposed to be taken seriously - it's all good fun from those wonderful pre-code days, when Hollywood was really naughty. Joan looks great, and displays much of the emotional range that would give her career such longevity (thank God she stopped the dancing!). Gable is remarkable as a slimy gangster - he wasn't a star yet and so didn't have to be the hero. Great to see him playing something different. And William Bakewell is excellent as the poor confused brother. And there are some great montages and tracking shots courtesy of director Harry Beaumont, who moves the piece on with a cracking pace - and an occasional wink to the audience! Great fun!@@@1 -Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.

David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).

Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...

As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).

The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it.@@@0 -This movie is an exact copy of a TV series on Indian television channel doordarshan Which was aired at least 15 years ago. The series was known as "gubbarre" meaning balloons. Each episode was a new short story. The story is excellent and the original is much sweeter and "convincing" Abhay Doel does a good job but he doesn't fit the role of a "normal" and "third class" guys(as he calls himself in the movie). In fact Shayan Munshi with his hair cut short and without the designer clothes would have fitted the Abhays role but Shayan just doesn't have the talent to pull it off.

I would suggest watching the series if it is available. It is the same story except for the running around with the friends mother and the initial introduction. The acting of the TV actors was much better than these "stars".

The only reason this movies is a flop is because the director tried to stretch half an hour(or 45 minutes) story to 2+ hours. So it has to get draggy. Even the nasal singing sensations songs could not make up.

This movies is good for a lazy Sunday afternoon and is really refreshing if you haven't watched the original TV serial. The script and the ending of the serial was much better

#####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### THe ending of the original serial was much stronger as the hero himself dumps the girl even thought she is willing to marry him. HE is aware and tell her that he doesn't want to be "repayed" and never helped with that intention. The director or the script writes somehow could not capture the original ending in this film. The original ending would have bought tears to the girls eyes and would have had the guys nodding in agreement. The deliver just wasn't right.

But personally I feel this is a pathetic copy. No credit should be given to the director/scriptwriter. The story is amazing and is by one of the famous novel writers int he class of PRemchand munshi. I am not sure if this is premchand munshi's story but many of the other short stories int he series feature a few of premchand munshi's and other great Hindi writers stories.@@@1 -Every once in a while, a group of friends, with a minimal budget but bags of enthusiasm and talent, will create a low budget masterpiece that takes the world of horror by storm. Raimi and co. did it with The Evil Dead, Jackson and pals succeeded with Bad Taste; and Myrick and Sanchez made a mint with The Blair Witch Project.

Director Todd Sheets and his chums, however, are destined to wallow forever in relative obscurity if Zombie Bloodbath is anything to go by. A lesson in how not to make a cheapo horror, this miserable effort (about a plague of flesh-eating zombies—natch) serves as a reminder that, whilst many people these days have access to a video camera, most shouldn't take that as their cue to try their hand at making a full-length movie.

It's not that Sheets hasn't got an eye for a nicely framed shot (some of his camera angles and movements are actually pretty good), but rather that a) he has a lousy script b) he has a lousy cast, and c) he doesn't realise that he has a lousy script and cast. Which means that the final film is amateurish in the extreme, and unlikely to be watched in its entirety by anyone other than zombie film completists (like me) or members of the cast and crew (like those who have given the film favourable comments).

Zombie Bloodbath is obviously aimed at undiscriminating gore-hounds, and Sheets (who currently has an incredible 34 titles under his belt as a director) certainly goes out of his way to please, with buckets of offal and blood thrown about at every opportunity. But whilst these moments are undeniably yucky, they aren't particularly convincing, and soon get rather tedious.

So, to summarise, this is a really bad film, with almost no redeeming features. Except for two:

Firstly, it features the single greatest mullet in the history of film, as sported by Jerry Angell, who plays Larry (as well as several zombies). The magnificence of his barnet (coupled with a fetching moustache) is reason alone to watch this film.

Secondly, it has 'pathetic stealth zombies': flesh-eating corpses that lie in wait for unfortunate victims to wander by, before leaping from their hiding place to launch a feeble attack, which requires almost no effort to escape from. Best known for lurking behind a door for hours waiting for someone to open it, 'pathetic stealth zombies' also occasionally hide behind low walls, or sit in churches posing as members of the congregation.

Normally a film this bad would get 1/10 for me, but, in celebration of Jerry Angell's flowing locks, I will generously raise my rating to 2/10.@@@0 -Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.

The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour!

The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating.@@@1 -Well, I bought the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy thinking it would be mindless gory fun. That's what it is, without the fun. This film truly is mindless, it is absent of any plot or character development, or any sort of storyline. The basic problem with this movie is the kills and gore. Basically, every kill looks EXACTLY the same. ZOmbies ripping someone apart. Yeah, that's okay, but you need some original kills too. I mean it got really lame, every kill looked exactly the same, filmed exactly the same way. Thats what killed me. I love gore, and the gore in this film did nothing for me. It was just boring. No storyline, just the same lame scene over and over again with a different person. I wanted to like this movie, too. I love shot on video gore movies...like Redneck Zombies. But I couldn't kid myself. This film has it's good points, but none of those are in the film. I understand that many of the "zombies" helped out with the flood and there were like over 100 zombies, which is pretty cool how they got so many people involved and helped out in the world. But overall, this is a terrible film.@@@0 -This movie was disaster at Box Office, and the reason behind that is innocence of the movie, sweetness of the story. Music was good, story is very simple and old, but presentation of such story is very good, Director tried his best. Abhay is excellent and impressive and he shines once again in his role, he did his best in comedy or in emotional scene. Soha looks so sweet in the movie. Rest star cast was simply okay. Music and all songs are good, Himesh is impressive as an Singer here. Don't miss this movie, its a wonderful movie and a feel good one for us. Abhay best work till date. I will give 9/10 to Ahista Ahista.@@@1 -If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says "God you're a horny bastard", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else.@@@0 -This is a kind of movie that will stay with you for a long time. Soha Ali and Abhay Deol both look very beautiful. Soha reminds you so much of her mother Sharmila Tagore. Abhay is a born actor and will rise a lot in the coming future.

The ending of the movie is very different from most movies. In a way you are left unsatisfied but if you really think about it in real terms, you realize that the only sensible ending was the ending shown in the movie. Otherwise, it would have been gross injustice to everyone.

The movie is about a professional witness who comes across a girl waiting to get married in court. Her boyfriend does not show up and she ends up being helped by the witness. Slowly slowly, over the time, he falls in love for her. It is not clear if she has similar feelings for him or not. Watch the movie for complete details.

The movie really belongs to Abhay. I look forward to seeing more movies from him. Soha is pretty but did not speak much in the movie. Her eyes, her innocence did most of the talking.@@@1 -If you haven't seen ZOMBIE BLOODBATH, you haven't. A contest like 'make your own horror movie in one day' could not possibly come up with a entry than this outrage of an insult on any viewer's intelligence. Mr. Sheets forgot a story, a plot, proper dialog, the fact that people need some BASIC acting talents and the credited lighting designer obviously forgot to show up. It seems to be recorded on the crummiest of handycams, and copied on even worse equipment. Make-up effect consist of black mascara for the zombies and yoghurt being poured over people's heads in order to simulate their skin melting. This is nothing more than a home-movie, and a really bad one as well. Only fun to watch for the friends, familymembers and neighbours that were willing to show up for the filming. I cannot for the life of me understand why this mockery of a product is listed in ANY serious film magazine or website - I have home-movies of wedding parties that are way better and more interesting. A total waste of time, money and energy. The sequel ZOMBIE BLOODBATH II is just more of the same rubbish.@@@0 -Watching film i was in very light mood and also this film is light but the end of the film is just unexpected which leaves a long lasting memories in one's mind.

movie starts with Abhay and his profession of being witness during registrar marriage. Soha comes for marriage and his boyfriend doesn't, leaving Soha alone on to the street she cant go back home and she don't have any thing to live on here in this situation Abahy turns out to be a helper for her, this is the base of story.

The rest is just watchable and the end of the story is bitter sweet that Abhay has to face which keeps you at the edge of the seat.

Dialogues and music are good songs are OK direction is good and so as the screenplay you do feel that movie is slow but looking to the demand of story it is all right.

A truly watchable especially with light mood i enjoyed this at home with coke and peanuts. my rating for this is 8/10@@@1 -Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?@@@0 -Ahista Ahista is one little small brilliant. I started watching it, and at the beginning I got a little bored since the pacing was slow and the main idea of one guy meeting a girl who is lost was not really new. But as the film went on, I started getting increasingly and gradually engaged by the film, the fantastic writing and the charming romance. The film was extremely simple and natural and after some time I felt I was watching a real documentation of one guy's life. There's one very good reason the film got this feel, and it's the fresh talent called Abhay Deol. He is extremely convincing as the simple, kind-hearted and struggling Ankush, whose new love motivates him to make amends and fight for a better life. Throughout the film, he is presented as an ordinary mischievous prankster, but also as a helping and loving person, who, like anyone else will do anything to protect his love. Deol portrays all the different shades of his character, whether positive or negative, naturally and with complete ease.

Shivam Nair's direction is very good. His depiction of the life of people in the rural neighbourhood is excellent, but what gets to be even more impressive is his portrayal of Ankush's relationships with the different people who surround him, including his friends and his love interest Megha who he is ready to do anything for. I also immensely liked the way Nair portrayed his interaction with his friend's loud and plump mother whom he calls 'khala' (aunty). He likes to drive her crazy and annoy her on every occasion, yet we see that she occupies a very special place in his heart and is like a mother-figure to him as evidenced in several scenes. Except for Abhay, the rest of the cast performed well. Though Soha Ali Khan did not stand out according to me, she was good and had some of her mother's charm. The actors who played Ankush's friends were very good as was the actress who played Ankush's 'khala'.

Apart from the performances, the film's writing was outstanding. The dialogues were sort of ordinary yet brilliant, and the script was also fantastic. That's mainly because despite a not-so-new story it was never overdone or melodramatic and there were no attempts to make it look larger-than-life. The film's biggest weakness was Himesh Reshammiya's uninspiring music which was unsuitable for this film. Otherwise, Ahista Ahista was a delightful watch and it got only better with every scene. The concept may not be new, but the film manages to look fresh and becomes increasingly heartwarming as the story goes by. The ending was bittersweet, kind of sad yet optimistic. In short, this movie really grows on you slowly, and this can be easily attributed to the wonderful writing, the moving moments, the charming romance, the realistic proceedings, and of course Abhay Deol's memorable performance.@@@1 -While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.

I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.@@@0 -Abhay Deol meets the attractive Soha Ali Khan and greets her "Hello Sister"!!!. This sets the tone for a remarkable debut film by Shivam Nair. Soha, a middle class girl has run away from her home in Nainital and come to Delhi to marry her lover, Shayan Munshi. But Shyan doesn't turn up leaving Soha heartbroken & alone in the big bad world. . Abhay, the lower class next door guy turns protective towards the vulnerable Soha and helps her get a job & shelter in an old age home. Slowly romance blooms and Soha agrees to marry Abhay. Then Shyan re-enters into Soha's life.

A sensitively made film with a very unusual story, lovingly shot in Delhi, revolves around the delicate Soha. This well crafted film has moments which will forever remain etched in one's memory – the awkward first kiss & Abhay's swift apology; Abhay describing Soha as "class wali ladki" & hastily adding "that he doesn't love her"; his gifting a churidar to Soha & asking her out for a date.

The music is good & the background music excellent. In a scene where Soha rushes & embraces Abhay the sound track disappears. The stillness conveys both the awkwardness & tenderness of the relationship.

The poignant ending makes for a bitter sweet film, the memories of which will linger for a long long time.

A must see I will rate it 8.5/10@@@1 -Even though this was a made-for-TV production, there's absolutely no excuse for the rock bottom results of the finished product. This movie DID have a budget and it had a casting department, so, if you're going to make a movie about a true life story, and actually put "the true story" in the title, shouldn't some effort be put forward to try and capture some realism ? First of all, this movie is absurdly cast. These actors belong in daytime television soaps, or in those ridiculous Lifetime channel movies, and not in a real-life gangster/criminal tale. Everything about them, from their looks to their mannerisms, just screams of the 90's-shopping-mall-alt-rock-listening generation. What about the script ? Two words describes it - stupid and insulting, and again it's way too 90ish sounding. I don't think the real Clyde Barrow ever uttered the words "I'm outta here." It's as if a bunch of "New Kids on the Block" fans got together and decided to make a really "kewl flick" about Bonnie and Clyde, you know, one that would be totally rad and rockin'. Well, this sticker doesn't even rank on the rad and rockin' scale. Everything that can be wrong with any kind of film is wrong here, from the casting and acting to the editing and music. Every single thing is grossly wrong....and it's infuriating that the parties responsible for this atrocious turkey had the nerve to put "the true story" in the title. It's certainly NOT the true story, but even worse, it's not even remotely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick that's accepted on its own terms. Like I stated in my heading, it's simply horrible beyond words, on every level imaginable. Trust me on this, or watch at your own risk.@@@0 -The story is about Ankush (Abhay Deol) - who is professional marriage witness, in short he acts as a witness for couples in marriage registration office - and Megha (Soha Ali Khan) who ran away from her home at Nainital to get married to her love interest Dhiraj (Shayan Munshi). The story starts with Megha waiting at the marriage registration office for Dhiraj to show up but for some reason he does not show up. So Ankush comes in the picture here, who had approached Megha with the intention of earning Rs. 200 for his Witness job and he ends up helping her by providing shelter to her. Ankush grows on his side by working in a bank as an Agent… Ankush falls in love with Megha and she too falls in love with him (or kind of love), both agree for the marriage and Dhiraj comes back in the picture. Unexpected circumstances happen, actually I should say, expected circumstances with unexpected reactions and then….

Actually the movie story is bit different than the movies we see and I do not think so it will be accepted by the masses but if you are a movie freak like me and love to watch something different, then you will definitely like the movie. The movie is just an innocent love story drafted very well by the characters of Abhay Deol and Soha Ali Khan. The characters are so natural that you feel as if things are happening to the guy next door. The background music of the film also plays a very good role, it is just too good. The way Delhi is shown is very good and gives a fresh feeling.

so let's cut it out and sum it up.

Story: A very common story carried very well and transformed to a wonderful experience.

Music: Well, as it was Himesh Reshammiya creation, so I did not expect much but still I liked couple of songs of the movie including the Qawwali.

Acting: Abhay Deol was the most impressive, very natural and innocent acting but he should stay away from singing in the songs. Soha Ali Khan, she is a doll, a very cute doll I must say. Again very innocent and natural acting and these both actors perfectly fit into their characters. Apart from these two, Shayan Munshi needs some acting lessons and may be few layers of fat to cover the bones. Other actors did their job well.

Stars: I would also give it 3.5 stars out of 5. You will enjoy the movie if watched in the theatre, I would recommend watching it in theatre if you are a movie freak and accept uncommon stories. Otherwise wait for the DVD to arrive. The movie will definitely won't be liked by the masses and the business it can do is from word of mouth publicity.@@@1 -Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars.@@@0 -This period melodrama is one of Griffith's earliest claustrophobic films. Characters trapped within a room are prevalent throughout his work and, as time went by, he would become increasingly adept at portraying their helplessness and involving the audience in their terror. In the bluntly titled Sealed Room there is one major difference to the normal plot line, in that there truly is no escape.

Griffith achieves the claustrophobic effect here in two ways. First is his use of space. While the typical Biograph short might utilise a dozen or more sets, The Sealed Room features only two adjoining rooms – the king's court and the dove cote that becomes the eponymous tomb. The set design in these shorts is rarely referenced, but here it is crucial. The court is a large interior, with a backdrop hinting at greater depth and showing us a window and a staircase. Actors enter and leave from various directions, suggesting the room is not only spacious but also free and open. By contrast the dove cote's back wall is very close to the camera, and the angles in it suggesting a hexagonal or octagonal shape make it seem even more confined.

The second technique on display here is the cross-cutting. Anyone with an interest in Griffith's work will probably know about his heavy use and development of cross-cutting to build excitement or tension. Many will also know that strictly speaking it wasn't his invention. However what makes Griffith's cross-cuts so effective is the way he paces the opposing images so they complement each other. The Sealed Room contains a good example of what I mean. The shots of the masons shifting the heavy bricks have a slow, step-by-step pace to them, with tension building as the wall gets higher. This movement is matched by the shots of the blissfully unaware lovers, in which Marion Leonard tears off flower petals one-by-one. As the couple realise their predicament, their rising panic is complemented by the opposing shot of the king madly thrashing his sword against the wall.

At this point, Griffith was yet to realise that the action could be heightened further by introducing a third strand to the cross-cut. The dramatic "ride-to-the-rescue", here absent, was later to become a standard climax to Griffith's pictures.@@@1 -I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film.@@@0 -By 1909, D.W. Griffith had been directing films for the Biograph Company for about a year, and – working at a rate of two or three per week – was rapidly beginning to develop his skills as a filmmaker. 'The Sealed Room' is a very interesting 11 minute short, a fascinating piece of Gothic melodrama that even drifts slightly into the realm of early horror. The simple narrative was probably inspired by Edgar Allen Poe's 1846 short story, "The Cask of Amontillado," and concerns a powerful king who conceives a deliciously sadistic form of revenge to punish his wife's infidelity.

Set in medieval times, 'The Sealed Room' begins with the king (Arthur V. Johnson) overseeing the construction of a windowless room from a sequestered dove-cote, the idea being that he and his wife (Marion Leonard) will have a completely private place to enjoy each other's company. He is obviously very much in love with her, always showing his affection, this latest act the crowning achievement of his endearment. However, unbeknownst to the king, his wife has fallen in love with the royal minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). During one romantic liaison inside the specially-built room, the wife and the minstrel are discovered, and the heartbroken king conceives a means of getting his retribution on the ignorant couple. Silently, he orders his workmen to seal off the only doorway with stone and mortar, slowly descending into cackling insanity as each new stone is placed down.

D.W. Griffith always had an eye for acute detail, and 'The Sealed Room' is an excellent early example of this. The lavish medieval century costumes lend the film a sense of reality, and the castle interior looks authentic enough to be believable. At the time, the director was also pioneering methods of creating suspense, and I must admit that, as the film progressed, I became fixated on finding out what would happen to the hapless young lovers. In the early minutes, Griffith restricts his shots to lengthy long-takes from a stationary camera (as was usual at the time), but soon – parallel to the progressively darker subject matter – he alters his editing tactics in a fascinating way. Though he may not have invented the technique, Griffith was crucial in popularising the use of "cross-cutting" – that is, alternating between different events occurring at the same time. Not only does this create a sense of continuity, but it also maximises the level of suspense, since we, as the audience, are well aware, not only of the king's ghastly actions, but also that the wife and the minstrel are oblivious to it all.

Despite these innovations, 'The Sealed Room' suffers from many of the shortcomings typical of the era. The entire film takes place in just two rooms, with footage captured from a total of just three positions, and so it is prone to become dull and monotonous at times. The acting performances are greatly exaggerated for extra effect, however, at least in the case of Arthur V. Johnson, his overplaying actually contributed to recognising the escalating madness of the betrayed king. A moment that I thought particularly effective was when the two lovers attempted to exit the room, only to find their only doorway replaced with a wall of solid stone. Their panicked reactions, accompanied by the silent maniacal cackling of the king, serve very well to create an impending sense of claustrophobia. I did think, however, that their supply of oxygen was exhausted surprisingly quickly.@@@1 -The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P@@@0 -I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.

In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.

With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.

But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.

Score: EIGHT out of TEN@@@1 -I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).

This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.

This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.

BAD STAY AWAY!@@@0 -This early Biograph short was so much fun to watch. The second on disc one of D.W. Griffith's "Years of Discovery" DVD set (highly recommended) it features three excellent performances by the main leads, and interesting to see Henry B. Walthall (The Little Colonel, Birth of a Nation) as a campy musician giving a Countess the eye (and other things).

The Countess' husband goes berserk at his wife's betrayal and has her walled into a little room with her paramour. It's kind of incredible that they wouldn't hear the wall going up, but hey, maybe the wine had something to do with it. Here Mr. Johnson (father of silent player Raymond Hackett) gesticulates wildly and this adds to the melodrama, but in an unexpectedly comical way. The best moment comes at the end. As the lady passes out from shock and fear, once she realizes she's doomed, Henry picks up his instrument and "fans" it over her. The way he did it was so unexpected and in a strange way kind of sexy, and I just lost it, and laughed my head off. The expression on his face! From that moment I was charmed by Henry B. Walthall.@@@1 -A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun!@@@0 -Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.

This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!!@@@1 -A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.)

There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.

While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity.@@@0 -After not having much luck at selling his screenplays to the new movie industry during the first decade of the 20th Century, in 1908 playwright D.W. Griffith got the job that would make him a legend: he was hired by the Biograph Company as a director of movies. It wasn't really what Griffith had expected when he decided to enter the movie business, but he accepted the job, and in less than a year he became Biograph's most successful director thanks to his original approach to film-making and the wild inventive of his narrative. Many years later, he would direct "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915, the movie that would revolutionize film-making and make him one of cinema's first recognized authors; however, a lot of what would make him a great filmmaker can be found in the many short films he made for Biograph Company in the early years of his career. 1909's "The Sealed Room" is one of those, and also one of the few horror movies of that very first decade of the 20th Century.

"The Sealed Room" is a story set in the 16th Century in which a Count (Arhtur V. Johnson) has built a windowless room in his castle. It is a small yet nice and very cozy room, as it is meant to be used to enjoy the love and company of his wife, the Countess (Marion Leonard) in a more private way. However, the Count doesn't know that his wife is not exactly faithful, as she is infatuated with the Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall) at Court, with whom she is having an affair. As soon as the Count gets busy with his own business, the Countess calls the Minstrel and both lovers go to enjoy the Count's new room. When the Count returns, he discovers she is missing and begins to suspect, finally discovering the two lovers in his room; but instead of making a scene, he prefers to remain hidden as he decides that there is a better punishment for his unfaithful wife: to seal the windowless room with the couple inside.

Written by Griffiths' regular collaborator Frank E. Woods, "The Sealed Room" takes elements from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" and mainly Honoré De Balzac's "La Grande Breteche" to create a haunting Gothic melodrama based on the themes of treachery and sadism. Despite having a runtime of 11 minutes, Woods' screenplay develops the story in a very good way, and plays remarkably well with the horror elements of the story. While a melodrama at heart, Woods focus on the character of the Count and his sadism creates one of the best horror characters of these early era. "The Sealed Room" is definitely a very simple and basic story, but Woods handling of the dark and morbid thematic of its plot makes the story a very entertaining film that was very different than most Griffith's melodramas.

In "The Sealed Room", Griffith uses his talents to experiment with tension and suspense in a different way than his usual. While he often played with editing to create thrillers that excited his audience, in this movie his focus was to create desperation and horror, playing with the inherent feeling of claustrophobia that the source stories had. It is interesting how the story starts as another of his melodramas and slowly the pacing becomes faster as the horror themes begin to dominate the plot, culminating in his great use of editing for the final scenes. Not being a movie where camera tricks are essential, what shines the most in "The Sealed Room" is Griffith's talent to direct his actors, as the legendary filmmaker manages to bring the best out of his cast with his usual natural style far removed from the staginess that was the norm in his day.

As usual, the cast was comprised of usual collaborators of Griffith, starting with Arthur V. Johnson as the Count. Johnson gives a great performance and truly conveys the character's transition from loving husband to sadistic monster. His performance is not without a touch of overacting, but actually that adds realism to the character's exaggerated personality. As the Countess, Marion Leonard looks very good and is also very effective in her acting, conveying a natural charm that makes hard not to sympathize with her in her treachery. Finally, the legendary Henry B. Walthall appears as the handsome Minstrel, and while far from being one of his best performances, he manages to give a proficient acting that also adds a nice touch of comedy to the film. While not of real importance to the plot, it's nice to see other members of Griffith's stock company in the background, like his wife Linda Arvidson and a young Mary Pickford as nobles at Court.

While not exactly a masterpiece, "The Sealed Room" is a notable exercise of editing to create suspense and tension like Griffith used to do in those days. The movie has very good set design and while of a very low budget, Griffith's care for details makes it look very convincing and works perfectly along with his directing style. The change of focus to horror makes it to stand out among other of his films from that era, and Johnson's performance as the sadistic Count makes it worth a watch. While Griffith will always be remembered for his highly influential (and controversial) "The Birth of a Nation", the early short films he made before it really give a good idea of the development of the techniques and the style that would make him a legend. Simple yet elegant, "The Sealed Room" is a fun movie to watch and one of the few horrors of the first decade of the 20th Century. 7/10@@@1 -This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5.@@@0 -Excellent P.O.W. adventure, adapted by Eric Williams from his own book (a paperback copy of which forms part of my father's library) that was inspired by true events; it may well be the first film of its kind and, therefore, has a lot to answer for – not just similarly stiff-upper-lipped examples such as ALBERT, R.N. (1953; which I'll be watching presently), THE COLDITZ STORY (1955) and DANGER WITHIN (1959) but higher-profile releases from the other side of the Atlantic, namely STALAG 17 (1953) and THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). This, then, sets the basis pretty solidly: British soldiers interned in a German camp devise an ingenious plan of escape, borrowing a page from Greek legend – burrowing from under a vaulting horse used during physical exercise and in full view of their captors! Actually, the film is neatly split into two halves: the first deals with the slow process of digging the tunnel, culminating in the escape itself, while the latter stages depict their fortunes outside the camp as they try to make it to neutral Sweden. Typically of these British films, the cast showcases several established (Leo Genn), current (Anthony Steel) and up-and-coming (Peter Finch, David Tomlinson and Bill Travers) stars, to say nothing of innumerable reliable character actors (Anthony Dawson, Bryan Forbes, Michael Goodliffe and Walter Gotell). The three leads/escapees are Genn, Steel and Tomlinson: while the first two stick together, the latter goes his own way – only to run into the others on reaching safety. As can be expected, the narrative involves plenty of suspense and excitement; as with most male-centered P.O.W. sagas, too, female interest is kept to the barest minimum. Director Lee didn't have a lengthy career – with this and the somewhat similar (albeit with a change of both setting and viewpoint) A TOWN LIKE ALICE (1956) his most noteworthy achievements – but he certainly milked every gripping situation in this case (even if, reportedly, delays in filming saw Lee quitting his post prematurely…leaving producer Ian Dalrymple with the task of tying up loose ends!). Anyway, worth special mention is the exquisite lighting (particularly during night-time sequences) throughout.@@@1 -Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) – but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess…

Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself – a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish – is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!@@@0 -This is the true story of how three British soldiers escaped from the German Prisoner Of War (POW) camp, Stalag Luft III, during the Second World War. This is the same POW camp that was the scene for the Great Escape which resulted in the murder of 50 re-captured officers by the Gestapo (and later was made into a very successful movie of the same name).

While the other POWs in Stalag Luft III are busy working on their three massive tunnels (known as Tom, Dick & Harry), two enterprising British prisoners came up with the idea to build a wooden vaulting horse which could be placed near the compound wire fence, shortening the distance they would have to tunnel from this starting point to freedom. The idea to build their version of the Trojan Horse came to them while they were discussing 'classic' attempts for escape and observing some POWs playing leap-frog in the compound.

Initially containing one, and later with two POWs hidden inside, the wooden horse could be carried out into the compound and placed in almost the same position, near the fence, on a daily basis. While volunteer POWS vaulted over the horse, the escapees were busy inside the horse digging a tunnel from under the vaulting horse while positioned near the wire, under the wire, and into the woods.

The story also details the dangers that two of the three escaping POWs faced while traveling through Germany and occupied Europe after they emerged from the tunnel. All three POWs who tried to escape actually hit home runs (escaped successfully to their home base.). The Wooden Horse gives a very accurate and true feeling of the tension and events of a POW breakout. The movie was shot on the actual locations along the route the two POWs traveled in their escape. Made with far less a budget than The Great Escape, The Wooden Horse is more realistic if not more exciting than The Great Escape and never fails to keep you from the edge of your seat rooting for the POWs to make good their escape.

The story line is crisp and the acting rings true and is taut enough to keep the tension up all the way through the movie. The Wooden Horse is based on the book of the same name by one of the escapees, Eric Williams, and is, by far, the best POW escape story ever made into a movie. Some of the actual POWs were used in the movie to reprise their existence as prisoners in Stalag Luft III. I give this movie a well deserved ten.@@@1 -...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity.

Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me.

This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them!

To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it.

This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy.

Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.@@@0 -Playing out as a sort of pre runner to The Great Escape some 13 years later, this smashing little British film plays it straight with no thrills and dare do well overkill. First part of the movie is the set up and subsequent escape of our protagonists, whilst the second part concentrates on their survival whilst on the run as they try to reach Sweden. The film relies on pure characters with simple, effective, and yes, believable dialogue to carry it thru, and it achieves its aims handsomely. No little amount of suspense keeps the film ticking along, and as an adventure story it works perfectly for the time frame it adheres to, so a big thumbs to the film that may well be the first of its type ?.

7/10@@@1 -- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.

- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy".@@@0 -While thinking of "The Great Escape" I allowed my mind to wander back to this little gem of a movie from my childhood. I had read and re-read the autobiographical novel from 1949 which inspired it, and when it came to the only cinema (we never used that word then , actually) in town that showed "foreign" films, I was first in line to buy my ticket.

As someone brought up on wartime newsreels and propaganda films during WWII, I had an avid interest in exploring the realities of that conflict as reflected in the memoirs and stories of men who were there in person. That extended later to a keen willingness over the years to buy any book on the subject, and eventually to read the equally compelling novels of Hans Helmut Kirst and Erich Maria Remarque, which provided an even deeper sensibility. The movie versions, however, were unlike this one in that they rarely delivered the goods.

The medium of black-and-white film has never been served so well as it was in those years. I have never seen any technicolor version of war that seems as authentic as do the deep chiaroscuros of films like "The Wooden Horse." If it is true that we are destined always to be captive to the images of our childhood, then I confess it freely.

And there will never be another the likes of Leo Genn as the emblematic British war hero on film. Not even Sir Alec.@@@1 -Well, what are the odds! At the exact right moment that a few redneck amateur-scientists discover cave paintings indicating that some type of dinosaur monster might have inhabited the area thousands of years ago, a burning meteor crashes into the lake and spontaneously hatches a monster's egg that has been lying there … for over a thousand years, I suppose! "The Crater Lake Monster" is a movie that literally must be seen to be believed, but you better do so in the company of many friends and a pile of ganja in order to make the wholesome a little bit easier to digest. Yes, this is a terrible film with the utmost ramshackle screenplay imaginable and numerous irrelevant padding interludes that are downright embarrassing, but it's also irresistibly charming and so clumsily put together that you simply have to cherish some kind of fondness for it. Half of the film – at least – revolves on the wacky adventures of Arnie and Mitch. These two local yokels own and run a boat renting shop near the lake, but spend most of their days picking their noses and quarreling over fascinating stuff like to spell the word "bait". It is mostly during their prototypic Laurel & Hardy situations that new puddles of blood or decapitated heads are discovered in the lake. Steve Hanson, the heroic but not exactly sharp Sheriff is on the case, but only if he's not too busy chasing big city thugs traveling through the area. Halfway through the film, there suddenly is an abrupt scene about a thug robbing a liquor store and killing two people in the process. This textbook "WTF" moment appears to take on the complete other side of the country, like in New York City or something, and has absolutely nothing to do with the events going on at Crater Lake. Only like twenty minutes later the robber pops up again in Hicksville and there's an "exhilarating" chase through the woods, ending in the Dino's hungry muzzle. The absurd little details in "The Crater Lake Monster" are too numerous to mention! For example, this is probably the only creature-feature in which the players discover the obligatory gigantic footprint AFTER they already spotted the actual monster. The goofs in continuity should be legendary as far as I'm concerned. It's like everybody forgot to pay attention to it. Night turns into twilight into day and back into twilight … all during one and the same diurnal course! The monster is undeniably the best aspect about the film, especially since it's accomplished through good old fashioned and adorable stop- motion effects. The cute critter is a Plesiosaur; meaning an aquatic dinosaur looking like a crossbreed between Denver the Last Dinosaur and an alligator. "Crater Lake Monster" is a unique and unforgettable movie- experience that I can only encourage to track down! The miserable 1 out of 10 rating is just out of principle (and because basically, this IS a very bad film) should be put into perspective, because I might as well could have given it 10 out of 10 for sheer entertainment value.@@@0 -The Wooden Horse is a very clever movie about a very clever and successful escape plan worked out by British POW's during World War II. It is superbly acted with a wry sense of humor, especially the lines expressed by the acid-tongues Leo Genn. Anthony Steele and David Tomlinson (later George Banks in Mary Poppins) are marvelous as the two heroes. The direction is taut and fast-moving throughout. Highly Recommended.@@@1 -We have a lake. We have an animated meteor crashing. We have a killer stop-motion dinosaur with flippers. Okay, so let's call this movie THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER. What else can we add? Hmm, two idiots called Arnie & Mitch to define the ultimate definition of "comic relief". We also got to have a sheriff who doesn't really do a damn thing in this film and whom nobody listens to. Aw crap, we're over halfway through the movie and we forgot to insert a bad guy! No worries, let's introduce some guy with a moustache, have him rob a store to indicate he's a bad guy, then have him pop up somewhere near the lake, have him chased through the woods and all this for the sole purpose of him ending up as dinosaur snack food. That should work.

A complete, clumsy mess, this film. Its logic will twist your mind to force laughter out of you. The first film to feature Dave Allen as a "stop motion supervisor". After this one, he joined forces with Charles Band for several years until the the mid-nineties, when Band ran out of money to pay him, I guess. The dinosaur effects are charming and the whole film is pretty damn unintentionally funny. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing that can be said for it.

Good Badness? Yes. The mind-bending logic in the narrative should be enough reason to put it on the list. If not, Arnie & Mitch will do the trick. 3/10 and 8/10@@@0 -The Wooden Horse was one of the first "great" escape stories from World War II, telling the true story of Eric Williams and others in their escape from Stalag-Lufft III in October of 1943. I really like this film, but had to by it on VHS from Amazon in England and get it transferred from PAL format in the U.S. I read the book when I was in hight school, after having seen a portion of the film in the early 60's on T.V. The taunt drama of Peter and John trying to escape from Germany during the war is more realistic than the treck of the escapes portrayed in the Great Escape. This film is a lost treasure, that should be made more available to American audiences.@@@1 -****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****

A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.

The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.

The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.

The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter.

The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?@@@0 -In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).

The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.

Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.

This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end.@@@1 -... and how they bore you right out of your mind! The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse "horror" with light comedy. This movie introduces a paleontologist who finds drawings of an aquatic dinosaur underneath Crater Lake...a meteor falls from the sky, and an aquatic dinosaur of the claymation variety begins to terrorize and eat the inhabitants surrounding Crater Lake. The whole matter is taken care of by Steve our local sheriff. Much of the film - when not showing pools of blood left behind from what we imagine must have been the beast dining - is spent following the bumbling antic of two guys named Arnie and Mitch who run a boat rental place. They try so bad to be funny, that we get lines like, looking at a business sign, Mitch saying to Arnie "You spelled bait wrong, it's spelled B-A-T-E." The laughs were rather scarce here. We then see them get drunk together and imagine a tree trunk to be the dinosaur. Laurel and Hardy watch out! The dinosaur looks fake, but the movie is fun in a bad way. And at the very least, the lake is beautiful.@@@0 -I saw this movie on Comedy Central a few times. This movie was pretty good. It's an interesting adventure with the life of Sunny Davis, who is arranged to marry the king of Ohtar, so that the U.S. can get an army base there to balance power in the Middle East. Some good jokes, including "Sunnygate." I also just loved the ending theme. It gave me great political spirit. Ten out of ten was my rating for this movie.@@@1 -Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.@@@0 -This unsung quiet gem tells the true story of a POW escape during WW II. The performances are incredible, especially Anthony Steele. The movie works on many different levels: cerebral, emotional, visual, and literal. The dialogue is ingenious and rings very true. In fact, an unusual all-around authenticity puts this one head-and-shoulders above most war epics.@@@1 -Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all.@@@0 -The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.

Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button.@@@1 -The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.

While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it!@@@0 -"Sandra, the Making of a Woman" is a standout among exploitation films, and is so for two reasons: (1) an excellent, yet effortless, performance by Monica Gayle, and (2) the fact that Gary Graver was at the helm of the project. These two talents, both of whom are quite underrated, make "Sandra" a film that should be seen.

Another key element of the film's success is its realism -- there is nothing fake or "Hollywood" about this set-in-California film. It is truly a slice of life. The modest house in which Sandra lives at the beginning of the film, the simple dresses worn by the character, the scene where Sandra wakes up in the morning to find Uschi Digart bouncing at her front door, and Sandra sits on the couch without make-up, while Digart tries to sell her some cosmetics, looking truly as if she just woke up (but nevertheless beautiful), the harmless weirdo Sandra picks up who likes to make love with her while he wears a bra, the one-room apartment into which Sandra moves --all of these elements of the film seem totally real, and as such, the viewer is drawn into Sandra's little world from the beginning and immediately becomes interested in her and wants her to succeed. Sandra also makes her case for free love with eloquence and dignity and she comes off with a lot of class.

This film could have easily failed in less competent hands, and could have gone off in any of the usual sexploitation directions, but the Garver/Gale team see to it that "Sandra" is not only the making of a woman but the making of an excellent film.@@@1 -Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Basically a man at a horn factory is the fourth to crack, and soon enough Ollie cracks with all the horn noises. He is resting at home with Stan by his side, needing quiet, and the Doctor (James Finlayson) phones to say he is coming over to check on Ollie. After realising plumbing and electricity is muddled up by a cross-eyed repairman, the Doctor comes in for a check-up, and after some tests, he recommends drinking goat's milk and getting some sea air on the ocean. After Stan practises some trumpet playing, hanging out the window by the phone cord and a car crash, he and Ollie to a dock to rent a boat. They keep the boat on the dock trying to milk a goat, and Stan has brought his trumpet! Meanwhile, the newspaper's front page reads that Killer Nick Grainger - Escaped Convict (Richard Cramer) has escaped, and he sneaks onto the boys' boat while they are sleeping, and the goat chews through the boat rope, drifting out to sea. In the morning, the see their location, and the Killer comes out demanding something to eat, and he spots Stan and Ollie making fake food, e.g. string for spaghetti, soap for cheese, belt for bacon, sponge for meatballs, and he forces them to eat it. When Ollie starts choking on something, Stan blows his trumpet to help, and Ollie's rage gets him punching the Killer, and it keeps going till the police arrive, only to have Ollie's rage get them put in prison too. There were the tiniest moments of comedy, but it isn't a great black and white film. "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" was number 60 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes, and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!@@@0 -Much underrated camp movie on the level of Cobra Woman, etc. Photographic stills resemble Rembrandt prints. Sometimes subtle dialog and hidden literate touches found throughout.@@@1 -SAPS AT SEA

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.

This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances.@@@0 -I just saw this movie for the first time ever and I liked it. Her dancing was very entertaining. I read somewhere that she got the part in this movie because she knew how to dance. The scenery was great too. Yvonne is such a talented woman and beautiful. WE laughed at the silly kissing scenes, but that is what is great about old movies! I grew up with her on The Munsters and I am enjoying watching her in her earlier movies. They may not all be the best out there but still worth watching to see her act and sing. I am slowly purchasing all her movies and watching them as I receive them. I have a large collection of her memorabilia.@@@1 -I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young "actor" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet?@@@0 -Miss DeCarlo's starring debut has everything the writers could come up with -- from the Franco-Prussian War to the US Civil War, the great American West, San Francisco in its heyday, ballet, opera, vaudeville, stage coach bandits, and a Chinese junk. Just when you thought the plot couldn't get any screwier, it does. It's magnificent, taken tongue in cheek. DeCarlo's character (here called Anna Marie -- NOT Salome, that's the role she dances) is loosely based on the career of the notorious Lola Montez, who was the mistress of the King of Prussia and caused a revolution when he gave her the crown jewels. She did escape to the American west. There is a town in Arizona called "Salome, Where She Danced," based on the historical fact that Lola Montez did dance the role of Salome there. StageCoach Cleve and the Russian nobleman who fall under her charms are not historically accurate, nor I assume is the Chinese wise man with the Scottish accent -- but it is one of my favorite all time camp classics and DeCarlo is breathtakingly beautiful throughout.@@@1 -I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.

On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.

Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.@@@0 -Look, this is quite possibly one of the best movies America has to offer the rest of the world. To hate this movie is to hate freedom itself. I remember that the early 80's were a time of uncertainty. The economy was weak, communism threatened us all, and nuclear destruction was almost a certainty. Out of that confusion came a hero, Stroker Ace. Ned Beatty's performance in this movie showed he was never again to be type cast as a one dimensional victim in the wilderness. His triumph is an inspiration to all. The on-screen chemistry between Burt and Loni draws obvious comparisons to Brad and Jennifer. Jim Nabors is a poet. Go see this movie tonight!@@@1 -Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!@@@0 -I love old Burt Reynolds movies. They're funnier and better than every other movie combined. They might as well have stopped making movies after "Cannonball Run 2", but I guess how could they have known that there weren't going to be any more good ones? Man this movie's good. Burt Reynolds has to dress up like a chicken and drive around in a racecar a lot, and the luxuriant Loni Anderson is on hand, looking extremely hot in an eightiesly way. Burt and Loni, those were the days! I used to have this magazine that had Loni Anderson in it advertising for a vaccuum cleaner. I sure loved that advertisement! Plus there's this one part in the movie where the audience at the racetrack is upset at something Stroker Ace (Burty R.) is doing, and it shows one guy in the audience bending over and sticking his finger up his butt to display his disappointment! I laughed so hard I almost passed away into the night! If you can find this movie, rent it! And then never watch another movie again, because I tell you right now: there's no point.@@@1 -The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -This is a hilarious film. Burt Reynolds is a NASCAR star who signs a sponsorship contract with Ned Beatty's Chicken Pit restaurants. The contract has all sorts of humiliating clauses in it, such as forcing Burt to wear a chicken suit during the race! Jim Nabors is his (not quite convincing) chief mechanic. Loni Anderson (oh, yeah!) is assigned by Beatty to keep Reynolds honest and strictly adhering to the contract. This is a funny film in which Burt proves that he ain't too proud. I like it!@@@1 -This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.

What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!

The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.

Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.

This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.

Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing.@@@0 -from the view of a NASCAR Maniac like I am, the movie is interesting. You can see many race cars from 1983. Even tough, the racing scenes are not that much realistic. But I have to admit, that I haven't seen any race before 1995, because before that time, they didn't show any NASCAR races in Germany)

from the view of a Burt Reynolds fan like I am, the movie basically is what we are used to see from Reynolds in the 80's: Burt behind the wheel of a fast car, like in his Bandit Movies.

If you love NASCAR and Burt Reynolds, this movie is a must-see. If you only love one of this 2 things, I also recommend to watch it. If you like neither NASCAR nor Burt Reynolds, you still should give it a chance, but remember, this movie was far away from winning an Oscar Academy Award.

It is the typical humor of the 80's. If you like movies like the Cannonball Movies, and Police Academy, you will also like that one.@@@1 -Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.

Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.

Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.

Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.

Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.

Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine.@@@0 -Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life.@@@1 -A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.@@@0 -This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression!@@@1 -The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.

One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV...@@@0 -This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.

If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..

Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see@@@1 -The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.

Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.

Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie.@@@0 -Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina..@@@1 -Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.

I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that???

Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.

Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.@@@0 -After having seen a lot of Greek movies I feel very suspicious against most of them. But after watching this I felt astonished. The movies is great without a big try. You cannot claim that the screenplay is so great or the photography is perfect or something technical. It's a real story and it is happening in Greek rural areas in places forgotten from God. The movie is like a punch in the stomach and I would really wish that things are not like this. It obviously talks about the xenophobia of the Greek people (the ignorance)to anything different. The problem of this guy is not that he is an ex-convicted. The problem is that he is not one of these people. He is different and they do not want them (that's why all the good things he is doing turn boomerang to him). And also speaks about the apathy of the people, because there are some people who are against the hunting of the King, but they do not dare to say their opinion. In the end you can clearly see the hypocrisy of the society being religious and trying to act like God says, but at the same time acting so unfairly to the King. This shows how easily people rationalize their feelings or their beliefs according to the established system. In the end you can have a positive lesson from this very bad story, meaning that you can understand and be part of this society only if you want to become one of them. If you want to remain different and even alone, you are lost (and it is not far from reality) I think it is tragic that the story is real and this should be a bell for everybody. No comment for the main actor because he is already given an award and I believe that his play was great. Small comment for Hatzisavvas (plays the policeman), he is like a dinosaur, he has played a lot of roles and I'm sure that this role for him was very easy but he plays it so great that you cannot deny him a big bravo. I definitely recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good Greek movie.@@@1 -Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things?@@@0 -Years ago many big studios promoted serial films that were shown in movie theaters's in between the actual features along with a Newsreel of current events, plus cartoons, especially on a Saturday afternoon. (The parents loved it mostly) "The Return of Chandu" was a 12 episode serial where Chandu,(Bela Lugosi),"The Mysterious Mr. Wong",'34 is a magician with super natural powers and travels to the island of Lemuria to rescue the kidnapped princess of Egypt,(Nadji)Maria Alba,"Dr. Terror's House of Horrors",'43. Princess Nadji is held captive by the black magic cult of Ubasti, who believe that she is a reincarnation of their long-dead goddess Ossana. These 12-episode serials take you way back in time and are very well produced, considering we are talking about 1934 !@@@1 -I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)...

I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.

Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.

But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.@@@0 -How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a long—lost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.

Without giving away too much—Chandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.

Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.

As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnapped—in a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imagery—and are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals.

Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?

Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosi—yet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.

This serial is unjustly bashed.@@@1 -The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!

summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!@@@0 -Bela Lugosi gets to play one of his rare good guy roles in a serial based upon the long running radio hit (which was also the source of a feature film where Lugosi played the villain.) Lugosi cuts a fine dashing figure and its sad that he didn't get more roles where he could be the guy in command in a good way. Here Chandu returns from the East in order to help the Princess Nadji who is being hunted by the leaders of the cult of Ubasti who need her to bring back from the dead the high priestess of their cult. This is a good looking globe trotting serial that is a great deal of fun. To be certain the pacing is a bit slack, more akin to one of Principals (the producing studios) features then a rip roaring adventure, but it's still enjoyable. This plays better than the two feature films that were cut from it because it allows for things to happen at their own pace instead of feeling rushed or having a sense that "hey I missed something". One of the trilogy of three good serials Lugosi made, the others being SOS Coast Guard and Phantom Creeps@@@1 -Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.

No plot line. Very little character developments.

Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall.

Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say "please, just move on with it!!" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.

The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.

Btw I'm not from an Indian background

2/10@@@0 -This movie was one of the best movies that I have seen this year. I didn't see any cameos in the movie, but it is still pretty good. It is similar to Anchorman in the humor department, but I think this is a better put together movie. It actually has a point. If you are going to see a whole bunch of T&A you will be disappointed. Just a well put together movie!!!! If you have nothing to do for the day or you need a lot of humor, you will find this to be a really good movie. I definitely think that Ebert and Roeper's review of this movie is right on. I mean, I don't really like Ebert on most movies, but this is the movie that I will agree about. The movie contains a good enough story that it is actually believable that these type of people are out there. There is definitely something to be said about how they treat virginity in this movie. Yea, sure, you get laughed at when it is found out about, but it still suggests that you wait. Steve did a wonderful job of portraying the person that he did in this movie and yet, it is still funny.@@@1 -It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.

Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.

About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie.

The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.@@@0 -From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.

Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.

One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words "chest waxing" and "condoms" are mentioned in conversation.

Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.

I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.

I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't "gay jokes," they're just jokes. And they're funny.@@@1 -Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.

Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.

The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.

I give it a 1 out of 10.@@@0 -Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.

Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.

Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!

I Give this one a perfect 10!@@@1 -i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala!@@@0 -Sunny, a cocktail waitress in the D.C. area, is a bit dim, to put in mildly. She drives an old clunker and rents a tiny room from a gay male couple. However, she saves the life of a prominent Arab, by taking a bullet in the behind that was meant for the official. She charms the national press with her zany remarks and her sweet looks. Sniffing an opportunity, Presidential aides get her installed in the protocol department for the U.S. government. Even then, she messes things up at times, but she tries hard and learns a lot. She even grabs the romantic attention of a State department official. But, is there another sinister plot in the making, involving an Arab man who wishes to take another wife? A blonde one? LOL, LOL, LOL. This movie features Goldie as pretty as a picture and as dumb "as a fox", as they say. Sunny learns her way around the jungle of the U.S. government very, very well. She even has important things to say about honesty and the lack of it in her protocol surroundings. Perhaps, the Arab community would be less than thrilled with this work, but for those who like to laugh, rent this today.@@@1 -*Possible Spoiler*

'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.

'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.

The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.

I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.

There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.

All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.

So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!

(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)

@@@0 -Well let me just say something about these actors, they really were a good decision, and from experience, having actors really brings the dialogue to life. If you walk into this even fifteen minutes late, you'll be in for a shock, the movie will have already began. You don't want to miss the first few jokes, assuming you came to not miss any jokes.

Wow! I have never seen a movie that ended with such a final ending. Not to be harsh, I mean I loved it, but it just surprised me that it really kept going until it stopped! But i'm getting ahead of myself, lets start with the very start of it, when it began. The plot outline goes like this, there is this man, and not to give away any spoilers, (*Spoiler Alert!!*) (he hasn't had any sex ever(!) they use this plot device to set the story moving, and there are (intentionally or not, it could go either way) some funny situations had by the main characters, some containing irony, and jokes, and awkward situations, you know.

The director uses the advancements in technology by combining the film shot on the set and scripted dialog, some music, and jokes to make a funny movie, designed as a comedy, where he takes us on a journey from the opening credits to the end with an entirely full movie in between. I went into this movie expecting to see a funny comedy because of what I already knew about it, and left feeling as though i had just left a theater that just played a funny comedy. TEN STARS!!!@@@1 -Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical

In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great

The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters

The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script

The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?

The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly

Direction is okay Music is good

Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else

John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay@@@0 -The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year.@@@1 -Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening.@@@0 -SPOILERS Sex huh? It's one of the most basic parts of human life. Yet, do we ever take it too seriously? People always want more, even those who get it on a daily basis, and if you are unlucky, there are potential life changing (creating) consequences. Ironically people claim we are all starting to have sex at a younger and younger age (despite Victorians getting married and having children in their early teens), so it must be increasingly difficult for those who get to a point as virgins. In Steve Carell's first big screen lead, he plays a man who has gotten to 40 without managing it. Treating us to countless lude and extreme sex related incidents, not to mention more profanity than an episode of "Eurotrash", the general plot of the film and it's principle doesn't sound funny. It's a pleasant surprise therefore that for all the inappropriate, failed jokes, there are an incredibly large number of ones which hit the mark and leave the audience in hysterics.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a nice guy with a good job and a pleasant temperament. At the same time though, he blatantly takes life too seriously and after being invited to a poker game as a necessary fifth member, Andy's friends discover his secret. At the age of 40, Andy is still a virgin. Now, for multiple reasons, but mostly pity, the three men (Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Romany Malco) all offer Andy advice with one goal in mind. To put him out of his misery and get him laid.

One of the few good things about "Anchorman", it was only going to be a matter of time before Steve Carell got himself a lead of his own. Impressively, in "The 40 Year Old Virgin" he doesn't disappoint. Showing the hopeless, shy virgin to perfection, Carell is a revelation as he gradually grows increasingly confident as the advice begins to help.

Carell is not alone however in his performance. Rudd, Rogen, Malco and Catherine Keener as the love interest are all superb. Rudd is a personal favourite as the love sick David who falls apart at multiple times and shares the finest scene with Rogen as the two argue over homosexuality.

The biggest surprise about this film is not the way that so many of the jokes hit the mark, but actually the clever way that it flips the message on it's head. Obviously designed for conservative America, the film's entire tone evolves from a simple story of sexual conquest into one of safe sex and abstinence. The virgin doesn't need sex to make his life complete, he just needs confidence and true love. A worthy message to preach, and a considerable improvement on the one you expect to see at the beginning of the film.

It's weird to see a crude comedy which is consistently funny and well acted, but low and behold, "40 Year Old Virgin" is just that. Throw in a well meaning message too and you're well on the way to a top class comedy. A surprising joy.@@@1 -I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous.

The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)@@@0 -As we all know the sub-genre of sex comedies is pretty crowded. Simply being excessively raunchy isn't enough anymore. I've seen and heard so many disgusting jokes and actions that a sex comedy really needs to have other positive points to appeal to me these days.

Coming into the 40 Year Old Virgin I knew basically what to expect; I did see the commercials after all; "is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?" What I didn't expect to find is a heart and honest attempts at character development. There's still the weird "off-the-wall" characters that we see so much in Adam Sandler movies and there's still enough inappropriate language to sink Noah's Ark but somehow the movie has a worthwhile love story and yes even a message.

The main character Andy is (unfortunately for me) a person I can relate to. In the first shot I see that he even shares my love for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (he has a poster for the movie on his wall) and throughout the movie we get to see his really neat collection of antiquities. Andy also has plenty of video games and a working knowledge of films and technology. Andy doesn't want to buy a car because he prefers his bike. Most importantly of all; Andy is a nice person, he doesn't swear and he respect women so much that he stays away from them. Combine all these factors and everybody begins to think he's a serial murderer. It's like my life story.

The other characters each have funny little stories to go along with their slightly exaggerated personalities and they all work on a certain level but not the way Andy does. I felt that it was sort of distracting in a way since Andy and his girlfriend Trish are really the only truly human characters in the entire movie.

I suppose since I mentioned one flaw I might as well bring the other noticeable one to light. The story is clever but too predictable and as far as romances go; it's quite simple. It deals with Andy's relationship with Trish for a long time and we all know what's going to happen in the end. Sure its final detour is a bit different than we may expect but you know what's going to happen in the end, and I assure you it does. These are definitely small stains on the movie but there's so much good here that I can easily ignore it's few faults.

When I say "good" I mean "bad" of course. This is a sex comedy and it wants to be bad. For the most part I think it succeeded. There are so many hilarious scenes such as Andy trying to get rid of an erection after refusing to have sex with Trish. Or the scene where Andy goes with his Trish's daughter to a sexual education class where he ends up asking more questions than anybody else. Ah and we must not forget the soon to be classic chest waxing sequence "Ooh! Como se llama!" An interesting little note about that scene; the actor Steve Carell actually did wax his belly and the pain shown is real. Of course they only did one take but it was still a very brave thing to do on his part.

Actually since we're talking about Steve Carell, I'd like to say that he has now risen on my list of respected comedians which is sort of odd since I didn't even know who he was prior to seeing this film. I was just so impressed by his writing, acting and timing that I now really want to keep an eye out for his future roles. This man has talent it The 40 Year Old Virgin proves that.

To be honest I had doubts about this film but early word was positive and I knew it was something I was eventually going to see. I'm glad that I did too since it's probably one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time and it doubles as something you feel is worth watching. It's not simply a series of sex gags lumped together rather it's a series of sex gags entwined with a very worthwhile character and a truly touching romance. Now excuse me while I go puke my guts out; I can't believe I just wrote that...

My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=virgin@@@1 -Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.@@@0 -This movie starts out hilarious from about the 15 second mark, and continues it throughout the movie. I cannot recall a scene where i didn't turn to look at people laughing with me. he is the perfect actor for this roll because of the way he looks and the way he dressed.

The comedic parts were great to see from actors not very big or popular. As you can see people do like this movie it is currently rated 7.9 on IMDb. i think it should be in 250. Lets put it this way i haven't seen this funny of a movie since American pie or the original vacation. see it if you want a laugh. I give this movie 2 of the highest thumbs up i have ever given since i found out about IMDb, great movie site.@@@1 -Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.@@@0 -This movie is a riot. I cannot remember the last time I had such a great time at the movies. I've seen a few good comedies in my time and usually they are pretty funny. But this one is wall to wall great lines. I think Best in Show is the last movie that I laughed so hard and so much in. The movie was non-stop until the end when they did the 5 minutes of sentimental plot clean up. Other than that it's a constant barrage of one liners and goofy situations. I'd like to see it again before it leaves the theater because this is like the Zucker movies where you don't get all the jokes the first time around. You have to see it two or three times to get it all in.

As far as the actual film goes, it could have used a better edit, it's choppy at times but we have to be forgiving for that. All the characters are great. It's not like an Adam Sandler movie where he tries to be funny and everyone else suffers around him and is the butt of the joke. I think I will remember all the main characters for years to come because they are all so likable. No victims in this movie. Also, thank God they got a 45 year old actress to play his girlfriend. Catherine Keener plays her and she is a sweetheart in this film. You just wish that women like her really existed. She's not a "10" like some of the other leading ladies but somehow her smile is warmer than Julia Roberts overdone overbite.

If you see the trailer for this film you may not think too highly of it. I assure you, the trailer does not do it justice. They do not give away all the good jokes. Just some of the mediocre ones.

Oh and one more thing. I hope critics put this on their top ten list. Many of them complain that comedies don't get the recognition they deserve and then at the end of the year they don't put it on their list. This means you Ebert!!!@@@1 -This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.

Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises.@@@0 -''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.

Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at.@@@1 -On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.@@@0 -The key to The 40-Year-Old Virgin is not merely that Andy Stitzer is a 40-year-old virgin, but rather the manner in which Steve Carell presents him as one. In a genre of crass "comedy" that has become typified by its lack of humor and engaging characters, The 40-Year-Old Virgin offers a colorful cast and an intelligent, heartfelt script that doesn't use its protagonist as the butt-end of cruel jokes. That Andy is still a virgin at forty years old is not as much a joke, in fact, as it is a curiosity.

Carell, a veteran of Team Ferrell in Anchorman and an ex-Daily Show castmember, uses the concept of the film to expand his character – we get to understand why Andy is the way he is. It's the little things that make this film work. When Andy's co-worker at an electronics store asks him what he did for the weekend, Andy describes his failed efforts at cooking. When Andy rides his bike to work, he signals his turns. He doesn't just adorn his home with action figures – he paints them, and talks to them, and reveals that some of the really old ones have belonged to him since childhood. A lesser comedy wouldn't even begin to focus on all of these things.

The plot is fairly simplistic – Andy's co-worker pals find out he's never had sex and they make it a personal quest of theirs to get him in bed with a woman. It's a childish idea and the film makes no attempt to conceal its juvenility.

Andy's friends are a complement to his neurotic nature: David (Paul Rudd) has broken up with his girlfriend over two years ago but is still obsessed with her, Jay (Romany Malco) is a womanizing ladies' man and Cal (Seth Rogen) is a tattooed sexaholic. Their attempts at getting Andy in the sack backfire numerous times, and each time leaves Andy feeling less and less optimistic.

Finally Andy meets single mom Trish (played by Catherine Keener) and, much to the chagrin of his worrying buddies who claim mothers aren't worth it, he falls in love with her. They begin a relationship and agree to put off having sex for twenty days – Trish being unaware that Andy is still a virgin.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin was directed by Judd Apatow, the man who produced Anchorman and The Cable Guy, and began the short-lived cult TV show Freaks and Geeks. Apatow is renowned for his unique sense of humor, and the script – co-written by Carell – offers plenty.

However, in the end the most interesting and (indeed surprising) aspect of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is its maturity. By now you are probably well aware that the film received glowing reviews from the critics, and even I was surprised by its warm reception. But after seeing the film, it's easy to understand why. We like Andy. We care about him. He's not just some cardboard cutout sex-comedy cliché – he's a real, living, breathing person. His neurotic traits combine the best of Woody Allen with childish naivety. His friends are not unlikable jerks and his romance is tumultuous and bittersweet. It strikes a chord with the audience.

Although this is far from being a perfect movie and definitely contains some rather crude innuendo and sexual humor, it doesn't offend to the extent that other genre entries might have because we have affection for the people on-screen. The best sex comedies work this way – from Risky Business to American Pie – and that is the major difference between something like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and 40 Days and 40 Nights.@@@1 -Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.

But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!

Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!

1 out of 10@@@0 -I was really surprised with this movie. Going in to the sneak preview, knowing nothing about the movie except for the one trailer I'd seen, I thought it was going to be a Dude Where's My Car kind of crap fest. I was expecting bad sex jokes and farting and a pathetic lead character who will get laid in the end because that's just how movies work. Instead I got a smart, surprisingly original movie about a decent, average guy who just never had sex.

Yes, the film is chock full o' sex jokes and vulgarity and the occasional hey-look-a-nipple!, but it's done much in the spirit of Bad Santa rather than Sorority Boys. All the characters are people you probably know in real life, redeemable friends who are just trying to hook a brother up and live their lives.

I went in thinking this movie was going to be total crap, and I was very surprised. Yea, it's pretty over the top (c'mon, it's a movie about a 40 year old virgin!), but it's very smartly done.

In the end, you're really pulling for this guy to get laid, which says a lot about the movie because honestly, did you really care if Ashton Kutcher found his car or not?@@@1 -If you haven't seen this yet, I say just move on, take a walk in the park, don't waste your time. Neither the scenario nor the acting is worth your money. *Spoilers*- I can't decide which was worse: The movie itself or Baldwin's hairstyle? Ellen Pompeo's acting talent is very questionable I hope she can improve it over time. The storyline is just unbelievable. Loose cannon American cop fighting criminals in Europe on his own?? Infamous Slavic mafiosi protected by only two hunks??? An emotional art teacher leading a ruthless gang??? Spanish police executive dumber than a sack of hammers??? Give me a break. There's only one good thing about this movie, though: At least, the production costs must be lower than "Ocean's 12"'s which was as meaningless and over the top as this one.@@@0 -I'm not quite sure if the term "serious comedy" applies to this movie, Im not even sure if this can be applied. On the last few years movie theaters have become filled with comedy movies which are way too stupid to even make us grin. Therefore, I considered the movies which do not fill these requirements as "serious comedies".

Does The 40 Year Old Virgin fit into this guild? That is finally up to you, but in my opinion, this is a very funny movie. You get to laugh a lot, plus it delivers a social commentary through some really great characters and situations.

I'm pretty there is more than one 40 year old virgin out there, and even the people whom do not exactly fit this specifications, may feel identified by one of the characters in the movie, especially men.

The story, as the title says it, is about Andy, a shy, silent guy, whom collects action figures, watches Survivor with his octogenarian neighbors and whose favorite band is Asia.

Kal is Andy's co-worker at SmartTech. He believes Andy to be a psychopath until Andy's secret is revealed. Kal is clearly a sexual pervert but yet he seems to get what he wants with the opposite genre.

David is the passionate guy who is still in love with his ex-girlfriend, whom ran away with another guy. And Jay, a man in a relationship which seems to be affected by his continuous cheating and getting caught acts.

I'm pretty sure most youngsters from 13 to 21 have already watched this film, but it really does not have an age limit to be able to enjoy it. So in case you haven't seen it and will enjoy a little laugh, with social commentary, than go to your video store and rest from those deep and depressing independent films.

It also includes DVD bonuses which you'll really see from top to bottom.@@@1 -This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since "The Longest Yard"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...

The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than "The Life Aquatic..."@@@0 -A pretty average movie but a brave one from Ms Hawn to promote this vehicle as Exec Producer & as a starring vehicle. Although she ends up vindicated, she is willing to portray herself as the dizzy bimbo. How many other A listed actresses have subjected themselves to butt injury pratfalls since this movie? Not many. Does this mean the female butt cannot be funny? Goldie surpasses other actresses as she has maintained a screen persona & ventures in projects other won't. Sandra Bullock occasionally goes there,for example, Miss Congeniality but Nicole Kidman would never cop the pratfall. A wonderful performer. Great to see some of my favorite actors, Chris Sarandon & Cliff DeYoung notably.@@@1 -I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.@@@0 -THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN (2005) **** Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Gerry Bednob, Shelley Malil, Kat Dennings. Hysterically funny high-concept comedy about the titular Andy Stitzer (wonderfully played by perennial second banana Carell in a truly extraordinarily comic breakthrough performance sure to stratosphere him to the A-list), a tech services rep for an electronics store in Southern California who is found out about his secretive identity by a trio of well-meaning yet entirely clueless womanizing co-worker buddies (Rudd, Malco & Rogen, each one degree funnier than the next) determined to get their friend deflowered no matter the cost. What follows is an unlikely yet very warm-hearted romance with a vivacious mother (the marvelous Keener having lots of fun here) leading to add more fuel to the fires within Andy. A surprisingly good-spirited and unapologetically raunchy romantic comedy; the funniest since "There's Something About Mary" with a shrewdly observant script by director Judd Apatow and Carell that features some astoundingly gut-busting sequences including a scathingly accurate David Caruso joke, homophobic debunking ribbing, send-ups of 'date-a-paloozas' and demystifying the war of the sexes with cheeky aplomb. A true winner and an instant classic; the funniest film of the year.@@@1 -This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this.@@@0 -Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.

The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.

The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.

Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.

Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in!

Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.

It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.

My Rating: 9/10

Objectively – 9/10

Subjectively – 10/10

Eliason A.@@@1 -First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm.

It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea.

My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.@@@0 -All right, here's the deal: if you're easily offended then you might want to stay far, far away from this one. There are some painfully funny moments in the movie, but I probably blushed about as much as I laughed. Actually, I probably blushed MORE than I laughed. And if I wasn't literally blushing on the outside, then I was blushing on the inside. If there is absolutely nothing in this movie that embarrasses you then you simply have no shame. Whether that's a badge of honor or not is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

I will not deny that I laughed quite a bit, but this is a movie that I simply cannot give a blanket recommendation due to its subject matter. If I were to say, "This movie is hilarious, go check it out!" and some sweet, little old church-going lady heads to the theater and has a heart-attack during one of the graphically explicit sex situations, well, that's just something I don't need on my conscience.

So how raunchy is it? Hmm, try about 100 times worse than The Wedding Crashers. Honestly. My mom would've walked out during the first scene. I feel it's my duty to at least warn you of what to expect.

There is some cleverly intelligent comedy here, but that's what I come to expect from the man (Judd Apatow) who had a hand in both Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. I'm all for making fun of Michael McDonald; the only man whose hair and beard are white enough to give Kenny Rogers a run for his money. Paul Rudd proclaiming, "If I hear Ya Mo Be There one more time I'll Ya Mo burn this place down," is hilarious, but it's one of those things that the majority of the audience won't appreciate.

And when we see a quick 3-second flashback of Steve Carrell singing along to Cameo's Word Up, I laughed for a good two minutes after the joke was over, whereas most everybody chuckled and then forgot about it.

Strangely enough, despite the raunch, there's an admirable moral to the story. The movie doesn't portray Carrell as some freaky loser just because he's a virgin. He's really portrayed as a likable, admirable character. Sure, he's a little weird. After all, he has a framed Asia poster, "more videogames than an Asian kid," and a toy collection that features the Million Dollar Man's BOSS, but we're never led to believe that there's actually anything wrong with the fact that he's a virgin. As odd as it may seem, there's a bit of an "it's OK to wait" message.

But man, oh man, please be warned that this pushes its R rating about as far as it can go. That was certainly Apatow's intention. According to him, he just let some of the guys (particularly Rogen and Malco) improv and talk the way they normally talk, all in an effort to find lots of new ways to be dirty. If you can handle that or talk that way yourself, then you'll love the movie.

I'm not a big fan of excessive profanity and sex jokes. I find that subtle, clever humor is much more entertaining than about 200 uses of the f-word or fratboy sex discussions. But that's me. Like I said, there are some absolutely hysterical moments here, but you have to ask yourself if they're worth sitting through one of the most vulgar movies you're likely to ever see at the theater. I just don't know how interested most women will be in what's discussed by men while playing poker. Honestly ladies, you might not want to know. If you've ever been curious why some girls think guys are gross, well, this gives you a good idea.

There you go - my humble, honest take on what to expect. Be that your guide. It definitely should not be seen with your Sunday School class, mama, grandmama, any family members of the opposite sex, children of any age, or anybody who is easily offended by excessive profanity or explicit sex discussion. If you'd see it with any of the above then you apparently do not have any concept of what it means to be uncomfortable.@@@1 -This film seems to be a rip off of many movies that have dealt with the same subject in the past. Let the future viewer be forewarned that "Art Heist" doesn't add anything to the genre. Director Bryan Goeres has no clue what to do with the film.

William Baldwin keeps reappearing in films, and frankly, one wonders if he has a great agent, or is it that directors and producers love his unusual goofy looks, complimented by that strange hairdo he sports in most of his movies. The only good movie in which he has appeared, is "The Squid and the Whale", in which he only speaks two, or three lines. Ellen Pompeo, his leading lady, doesn't fare much better; there is no chemistry between Ms. Pompeo and Mr. Baldwin.

A movie to be seen at the viewer's own risk.@@@0 -this is one of the funnier films i've seen. it had it's crude moments, but they were full of charm. it's Altmanesque screenplay, brilliant physical humour, and relaxed friendships were a pleasure to watch, and a slice of life most of us can relate to. and i can say with a measure of honesty that i was afraid for Steve Carell's nipple..i truly was. surprisingly, this is a good-natured, unabashed comedy that is essentially about love, and the many relationships we may find ourselves in along the way. Catherine Keener was terrific as Trish, and all of Steve Carell's friends were flawed but amiable, and so much fun. the idea that they suspected that Carell was a serial killer is a hilarious metaphor for a forty-year old virgin. but the simple truth was that he wanted to be in love first. original, charming, and very funny. highly recommended.@@@1 -This is one of the worst movies ever made. Trite. Predictable. Flat.

The only thing that rated one point was there was a few nice scenes highlighting Barcelona. I imagine they would use films like this in Guantanamo or some other hidden CIA/NSA prison to torture suspects.

Often bad movies have some redeeming features, this has nothing. If I was in it or worked on it, I would change my name. Truly a turd. Hard to write more than this, but I feel the world's film watchers needed a head's up on this. On the other hand it will make a great gift for people you can't stand.

You could send it to politicians you dislike, in laws, ex-wives, Teachers you hated, former employees, Dick Cheney, W., and a host of others.@@@0 -Steve Carell comes into his own in his first starring role in the 40 Year Old Virgin, having only had supporting roles in such films as Bewitched, Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, and his work on the Daily Show, we had only gotten a small taste of the comedy that Carell truly makes his own. You can tell that Will Ferrell influenced his "comedic air" but Carell takes it to another level, everything he does is innocent, lovable, and hilarious. I would not hesitate to say that Steve Carell is one of the next great comedians of our time.

The 40 Year Old Virgin is two hours of non-stop laughs (or 4 hours if you see it twice like I did), a perfect supporting cast and great leads charm the audience through the entire movie. The script was perfect with so many great lines that you will want to see the movie again just to try to remember them all. The music fit the tone of the movie great, and you can tell the director knew what he was doing.

Filled with sex jokes, some nudity, and a lot of language, this movie isn't for everyone but if you liked the Wedding Crashers, Anchorman, or any movie along those lines, you will absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin.@@@1 -Although in many ways I agree with the other reviewers comments. I find that the plot and idea are very good. Many of the supporting actors were very good. The fatal problem with this film is Ellen Pompeo. I am sure, I have never seen a less talented "actor" How this person has ever been in a film or on television, I cannot imagine. In my opinion she would be better as a greater at a Wal-Mart. To see a person with this low level of talent involved in paying roles, does beg the question...... "Who does she know"? I would very much like to see this film re-made with some talent. I do not fault the writer for the failure of this film to be worth the time to view it.@@@0 -Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.

The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).

So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of "how is he going to tell her such and such" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.

The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year.@@@1 -OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.@@@0 -I got a free pass to a preview of this movie last night and didn't know what to expect. The premise seemed silly and I assumed it would be a lot of shallow make-fun-of-the-virgin humor. What a great surprise. I laughed so hard I cried at some of the jokes. This film is a must see for anyone with an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor. OK.....this is not a movie to go to with your grandmother (Jack Palance?) or small children. The language is filthy, the jokes are (very) crude, and the sex talk is about as graphic as you'll find anywhere. What's amazing, however, is that the movie is still a sweet love story. My girlfriend and I both loved it. Steve Carell is terrific, but (like The Office) the supporting cast really makes the film work. All of the characters have their flaws, but they also have depth and likability. Everyone pulls their weight and the chemistry is perfect. I can't wait to get the DVD. I'm sure it will be up there with Office Space for replays and quotable lines.@@@1 -Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.

The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.

Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.

Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.

Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.@@@0 -Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend.@@@1 -one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time.@@@0 -I haven't laughed this hard at a movie in a long time. I got to go to an advance screening, and was thrilled because I had been dying to see it. I had tears in my eyes from laughter throughout a lot of the movie. The audience all shared my laughter, and was clapping and yelling throughout most of the movie.

Kudos to Steve Carrell(who I had already been a fan of). He proves in this movie his tremendous talent for comedy. He has a style that I haven't seen before. And Catherine Keener is excellent as always. Thank God there wasn't a cameo from Will Ferrell(love him, but saw him too much this summer).

There were parts of comedic genius in this movie. Partly thanks to Carrell, and partly thanks to the writing(also Carrell). The waxing scene and the speed dater with the "obvious problem" were absolutely hysterical.

I will definitely go see '40 Year Old Virgin' when it's released. My advice: go to see it for huge laughs and an incredibly enjoyable movie on top of it.@@@1 -This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.

The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.

By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.

It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.

Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.@@@0 -Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.@@@1 -1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.@@@0 -BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.

Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.

@@@1 -

I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.

---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.@@@0 -In the previews, "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" boasts the image of another immature sex romp about a 40-ish Lonely Guy who suddenly feels the urge to do the deed simply because he hasn't. Too many past bad experiences have dampened his enthusiasm to the point that he avoids women completely. And then the unexpected happens: he falls in love. What's more, there's a movie out about it, and it's called "The 40 Year-old Virgin."

The virgin of the title is Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell), who is indeed 40, works as an employee at an electronics store and collects vintage action figures, which are displayed all throughout his nice bachelor pad for all to see. He has a lovely home theater system and watches "Survivor" with his two kind elderly neighbors. He's a pretty picturesque definition of the Lonely Guy who needs to go out more and talk to more women.

Now here's the real novelty with this picture: it does the impossible task of actually dealing with its subject matter in a cute, mature fashion. This is a movie that could very easily have turned out a lot differently in the hands of a more transparent team of filmmakers. It could have descended into endless sex gags and jokes but thankfully this picture never stoops that low. Sure there are sex jokes here and there and even a few prods are aimed at the gay community (which are, in no way, meant to be taken as gay-bashing), as two of the characters exchange insults towards each other while playing a video game ("Mortal Kombat: Deception," no less - the ultimate testosterone-driven fightfest for guys).

As someone who is rapidly approaching 20, collects McFarlane Toys action figures AND has himself never done the deed, I found this film amusing and touching in a way that a similar-themed movie could never have been. I was able to relate to the character of Andy Stitzer more than anyone in the theater because I was the only teenager present at this showing; everyone else looked like they were all past 40. A bit arrogant, I know, but would you ("you" is italicized) still be able to relate if you were the only teen present at an afternoon screening of "The 40 Year-Old Virgin"?

Of course Andy has never had sex and wakes up everyday with "morning rise" (don't ask), and he's pressured by his buddies to try outlandish methods of gaining the attention of the opposite sex. When it's first discovered Andy is a virgin, at 40, his three buddies and fellow electronics store coworkers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco) and Cal (Seth Rogen) all at first assume he's gay because he's never been with a woman, which couldn't be any further from the truth. The truth is, Andy loves women, but past traumatic experiences (revealed hilariously one after the other in a flashback sequence) have put him on the sidelines for good.

David, Jay, and Cal each embark on a mission to get Andy laid, so help them all. But you know that such escapades will only end in disaster, as proved by one date with Nicky (Leslie Mann), who puts Andy through the worst drunk-driving experience I think anyone would not want to go through and he has a rather creepy encounter with Beth (Elizabeth Banks), the pretty girl who works in the bookstore and is eventually revealed to be a total sex fiend.

Things brighten up for Andy when he meets Trish (Catherine Keener), the friendly woman who works at a store across the street that sells stuff on eBay for people. Hmmm. And with that nice-looking collection of action figures, you can go figure that in the end a large financial payoff awaits him, that is if he can ever "do the deed."

At last, this is the sex romp we've been waiting for. It deals with a very real issue a lot of Lonely Guys probably go through, not that anything is wrong with being a virgin but let's look at the big picture: How many of us "Lonely Guys" want to be a lonely guy forever? The important thing we're taught in this picture is that Lonely Guy must be himself. I don't think he needs to go through body waxing like Andy does (which is side-splitting to be honest, and according to this website and various other news articles, was in fact real, and so was the blood on Carell's shirt afterward).

"The 40 Year-Old Virgin" was directed by Judd Apatow and co-written by himself and Carell, which originated as a skit that starred Carell. Carell is sweet and human, as his character is not some layabout who approaches this thing with his eyes shut. This is probably one of the most intelligent romps I've ever seen and is not offensive (a whole lot) because its characters are treated with dignity and respect. Even Carell's buddies, who pass off bad advice to cover up their own relationship insecurities, can be related to on a fundamental level.

The way "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" plays out is indeed funny in the end, but I'll leave that up to you, the viewer, to observe. Surely, if anyone can go through the things Andy does and still have the strength to attract a woman as sexy as Catherine Keener, then it's true: It is never too late!

10/10@@@1 -My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least "Plan 9" was enjoyable.

I DID really enjoy "Christine", "The Dead Zone", "Firestarter", "Carrie", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for "Cujo" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or "Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)".

But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The "creatures" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)

Even the "one-liners" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.@@@0 -A classic series that should be at least repeated or released on DVD.Billy Toth,after realising he is adopted after the death of his parents,embarks on a journey to find his real parents.After various rites of passage,his search culminates in the discovery that his fathers identity was stolen and used by a human trafficker in Europe!If i remember correctly,the series ends on the Austrian(?] ski slopes and a cliff top chase resulting in the death of Billys fathers betrayer. This series was all filmed on location in various destinations round Europe and appeared polished and incredibly well made with some episodes crossing into the realms of film noir and crime thriller.The main arc was often eclipsed by the slices of life that Billy went through during his years of toiling to find his mother and fathers secrets.A class act but underrated and forgotten.@@@1 -This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen without a doubt. The only thing interesting in this film is the cameo appearances from some great genre directors and King himself. The film has a great premise, but falls apart about 15 minutes into the story. I did like Madchen Amick in this film and think she could have a very good career in film.@@@0 -what a relief to find out I am not imagining this programme! the summary from taxman is great. I too remember finding it haunting and not particularly family viewing, I must have been 10/11 at the time I watched it. I think for a girl that age part of attraction was lead's very blond hair, and his permanently sad state. The theme was played on a flute I recall - although I cannot remember how it went. I think the intro showed him playing it - or maybe he played a flute in the programme and especially when he was sad? Maybe I am destined never to know how it ended or to see clip or hear the tune, but at least I now know it is not just me.@@@1 -"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.@@@0 -Barriers seems to be one of those series that have been lost in the mists of time. After it's transmission in the early 80s and one repeat, it's since sunk without trace. This is a crying shame.

I originally watched this when it was transmitted in the Southern TV region on Sunday afternoons and was classic tea-time viewing. Although I don't remember a great deal about the program, a few things stuck in my mind. Most notable were the unforgettable titles. The mournful flute music accompanying the attempted escape across an East European border and the subsequent car crash (and that scene has left me with an abiding love of 'fintail' Mercedes models as they used a Merc 200). Although it wasn't obvious at the start, the solution to the series' mystery was in these titles.

The plot about a young music student trying to unravel what really happened when he discovers he was adopted had lots of twists and turns but Barriers was a surprisingly 'adult' children's drama. Benedict Taylor was excellent as Billy and it was a shame he didn't do a lot more.

This was a quality drama, well overdue for a DVD release and I hope I'll get the chance to re-acquaint myself with it in the future.

A fond memory from my childhood@@@1 -Oh dear me! Rarely has a "horror" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.@@@0 -Having set the sitcom world alight with 'Father Ted' Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan's next creation was a forgotten gem for the BBC called 'Hippies' Although created by the pair- the six scripts were written by Arthur Matthews alone.

Set in London in 1969- Ray Purbs, a hippy, is the editor of an anarchist magazine. His friends are his flat-mate, the very laid back and cannabis smoking Alex, his 'girlfriend' is feminist Jill and the none too bright Hugo.

Simon Pegg was superb as Ray, but he is superb in everything he is in. This sitcom had a feel of 'Citizen Smith' about it. Ray was very much like Wolfie Smith, trying to beat society, but failing miserably. At last this sitcom is going to be released on DVD in March, I can't wait to buy it. As it was on in 1999 and has yet been repeated on terrestrial television- my memories aren't too good of the sitcom, yet I remember two episodes really clearly, the first being the opener 'Protesting Hippies' which I thought was a great start- where Ray goes on a protest against sandpaper and the other episode was 'Hippy Dippy Hippies' which I think was episode 4, again quite a clear memory about the Police. Sadly, the sitcom got a negative reaction from viewers (I can't think why). The BBC commissioned another series, but Arthur Matthews decided against it because of the negative reaction. Oh well, I can't wait for the DVD.

Best Episode: Hippy Dippy Hippies- Series 1 episode 4.@@@1 -Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10.@@@0 -I often wonder why this series was slammed so much. I thought it was brilliant and also very cleverly written and performed. I think in time to come it will be seen in the light it deserves, that is if they ever issue it. Many up and coming young comedy actors appeared in this and all went on to greater things. Maybe this fact will make people aware of its value and it will have to be issued. Sally Phillips, Simon Pegg, Peter Serafinowicz and not least Julian Rhind-Tutt of the hugely successful Green Wing. The writers Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews are two of the finest comedy writers of the modern age. Anyone that can produce comedy like Father Ted couldn't be capable of writing something not worthy of publication. If it is ever issued I will certainly buy it.@@@1 -Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.@@@0 -I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )!

Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat!@@@1 -This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie.@@@0 -When I first saw the Romeo Division last spring my first reaction was BRILLIANT! However, on future viewings I was provided with much more than masterful film-making. This picture has a singular voice that will echo throughout the annuls of film history.

The opening montage provides a splendid palette which helmer JP Sarro uses to establish his art on this canvas of entertainment.

Sarro truly uses the camera as his paintbrush while he brings us along on a ride that envelops the audience in a tremendous action movie that goes beyond the traditional format we have become accustomed to and dives deeply into dark themes of betrayal, revenge and the importance of companionship. This movie is any director's dream at its very core.

However, Sarro was not alone in this epic undertaking. The writing, provided by scribe Tim Sheridan, was just as breathtaking.

The dialogue was so precise and direct that it gave the actors such presence and charisma on the screen. Specifically speaking, the final scene (WARNING: SPOILERS!!! SPOILERS!!!) where Vanessa reveals herself to be one of the coalition and a villain all the time, is written in such a dark tone that it is one of the most chilling endings I have ever seen. Sheridan is the next Robert Towne.

In a final note it is obvious that this production was no small feat.

Therefore much praise must be given to producer Scott Shipley who seems to have the creativity and genius to walk next to Jerry Bruckheimer. Never before have I witnessed a production so grand with so much attention directed at every little detail. A producers job is one of the hardest in any movie and Shipley makes it look easy.

All in all this film combines creative writing, stunning production and masterful direction. This is the art of film at its best. When the ending of the film arrives the only thing that is desired is more.

The Romeo Division is groundbreaking, a masterpiece and, most importantly, The Romeo Division is indeed art.@@@1 -If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial "wazoo". Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.@@@0 -I just want to say that I am so glad somebody finally spilled the beans on this movie. Bravo "The Spaz", Bravo! This movie is a ridiculous farce of film-making. Especially for a student film! I just want to give credit to the Spazz for taking the absurd amount of time a care to find such a rare picture, and then TO COMMENT ON IT! Most people I know don't have that kind of time, especially so few will end of reading it. Kudos to you sir! Anyway, the movie follows a thin storyline that is at the least unbelievable and just plain silly. I understand the idea behind creating a satire of Charlie's Angels but why hire such atrocious actresses! Also, what kind of director has himself act, write, produce and also edit the picture! Choose one job and put all your love into it man! It's such a shame because I hear he made a good movie about a killer toothbrush. Again, thanks to the Spazz for pulling back the curtain on this film, people like you are a rare find.@@@1 -I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!!@@@1 -It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.

This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description.

However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist.

This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss.

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.

This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.@@@0 -This is a feel-good movie and nothing more. And for that, it is great fun to watch. Sure it skims over political issues. But so what? I am sure she wasn't trying to make 'Good Night and Good Luck' here. Let's not try to make it anything else but what it is...light fare.

And very enjoyable at that!

Do we remember what 1984 was like? We've become very sophisticated according to the media as far as what we watch or not. I tend to differ on this point. Goldie knew this was fun-fluff and she went ahead and did it.

Like her lightest fare: Protocol, Overboard, Housesitter, Wildcats, Private Benjamin, Seems Like Old Times, Foul Play, Death Becomes Her, First Wives Club and the remake of Out-of-Towners, GOLDIE knows what she is doing...she plays every role for the camp that you can get out of it! Goldie just knows herself really well, and she knows what she can do really well.

She has always made me laugh cheerfully and innocently. I loved her in Laugh-In and every thing she's ever been in. She has never tried to be anything else but who she is...and that's that bubbling, giggly, girl next door who happens to be very pretty and has a smile and a laugh that will always endear me and remind me that life is pretty short and you've just got to lighten up because before you know it...you are old, wrinkled and suffering from one of life's inevitable ailments. If it even comes that late.

I appreciate Goldie for what she is: a lovable, comic actress.@@@1 -IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!@@@0 -My mother and I were on our way home from a trip up to the North East (mainly Massachusetts) when we decided to take a little detour a attend a film festival in Boston. Now, I don't know much about film so I thought this might be a bit educational. The first movie we saw was this one, THE ROMEO DIVISION. Now, I don't know about you but I thought this was great! I'm from Texas and where I come from we don't see too many motion pictures so this was a pleasant surprise. My mother insisted that it was too violent, but said that I didn't know much about what she was saying but this was a great picture. I was shocked by the fight sequences they were great. Also, I am a big fan when the good guys win so I was thrilled when Romeo ladies killed all of the bad guys. This was true brilliance. I'm not sure when it's getting released on video but if you get the chance you should check it out. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. A word to the wise though, it is rather violent and there many cuss words so you may not want to let your children watch. It's more for adults.@@@1 -this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue@@@0 -...here comes the Romeo Division to change the paradigm.

Let me just say that I was BLOWN AWAY by this short film. I saw it, randomly, when I was in Boston at a film festival and I have thanked god for it every day since. I really, truly believe I was part of a happening, like reading a Tarantino script before any else did or seeing the first screening of Mean Streets.

I am not sure what festival the short is headed to next or what the creative team has on tap for future products, but I so hope I can be there for it.

Again, a truly incredible piece of film making.@@@1 -Written by Stephen King, but this treatment is not as solid as most of his stories on film. A mother and son move into a small Indiana town with a secret. They are Sleepwalkers, feline type creatures that feed on young virgins. This little story has its share of gore and special effects; plus hints of incest.

Alice Krige is outstanding as the mother. Others appearing are Madchen Amick, Brian Krause and Cindy Pickett. Look for very small roles for John Landis and Clive Barker. Stephen King cameos as the caretaker of the cemetery.@@@0 -I have watched this movie three times. The last time, I kept skipping around confusing scenes to find resolution for the plot. Perhaps the plot is not intended to hang together logically. Or perhaps these rough spots are in the plot because Ann's recall of distant events is rather faulty.

Take the young Ann Grant (Claire Danes). Here is a young woman who has attended an unnamed college with the scions of a rich family. She must have had help to afford this very expensive education, but never seems to have any family ties at all. She never seems to have any relatives she can turn to when the consequences of one of her disastrous decisions take effect.

Ann shares an evening of passion with her great love Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson). Then, when Harris comforts Lila after the tragic death of her brother Buddy, Ann suddenly finds him repulsive and is disgusted with her own behavior. I must have missed something significant here. Ann's behavior seems totally inexplicable. Ann abandons her relationship with Harris and eventually marries one of the groomsmen at Lila's wedding. Despite Ann's rejection of Harris, she continues to hold deep feelings for him on her deathbed.

It was obvious from his behavior that Harris was deeply smitten with Ann and would have gladly married her. A scene showing their chance meeting years after Lila's wedding showed that Harris still had deep feelings for Ann.

The film showed a pattern for Ann's romantic relationships. She always had a falling out with her men and she rejected them. This pattern held with Harris and two husbands. In contrast, Lila married a man she did not love and she remained with her husband until he died. Perhaps Lila was able to build a relationship because she refused to let her marriage fail.

Then came the too convenient reappearance of Lila Ross at Ann's bedside. Apparently Ann's nurse was able to extract enough information from Ann's last few lucid moments to identify and contact Lila. None of this communication appeared on the film.

I kept wondering about the house Ann was living in during her final days. How did she afford to buy such a house on the meager earnings of her singing career? Ann always seemed one step ahead of financial disaster while raising her two daughters.

On another level, I enjoyed the film's setting and music immensely. The seaside mansion was just so heartbreakingly beautiful. Claire Danes was luminous as the young Ann Grant. She is really quite a talented singer. I much prefer her natural brunette to the bottle blonde look she had in the film extras. If only those pesky CGI fireflies would go away, I could raise the movie a whole point in my vote!@@@1 -A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.

I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.

The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.

King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.@@@0 -Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.

Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai ("Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp@@@1 -There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored.

Don't waste any time on this one.@@@0 -Evening is an entertaining movie with quite some depth. All the actors and actresses turn in spectacular performances. With the tremendous cast, though, one expects stellar acting, but in this movie the expectations are exceeded. One can relate to personalities and situations in ones own family. As one watches the interaction of the family members one's own family memories are immediately brought to mind. This is one of the few movies that inspires one to read the book. Usually it is the other way around; one reads the book and then wants to see the movie. I will definitely obtain a copy of the Susan Minot book and read it. The Rhode Island scenery is spectacular as is the soundtrack. Any car buff will enjoy the apparently expertly restored period automobiles. Needless to say now, but I recommend Evening highly. See it you will enjoy it.@@@1 -OK, I taped this off TV and missed the very start. The film was about 10 or so seconds into the titles (I assume) so if anything happened before that I missed it.

Lots of people say Mark Hammill is in this, I didn't see him. I did recognise Clive Barker, John Landis and obviously Stephen King doing some really awful acting as the graveyard attendant.

Alice Krige looks lovely apart from the scenes where she has the cat face or is in full alien make-up.

Even with the opening titles it's never really explained very well exactly what Sleepwalkers are or where they come from. From the title sequence I assume they are catlike bipeds who live by extracting life-force from humans. I assume they live a long time and these particular 2 are possibly the last of their kind.

Add to this a very large dose of incest (Yes! I thought it was a bit suspect too), shapeshifting, killer cats and invisibility and you have Sleepwalkers.

It's a very bad story that has no real explanations behind the main 2 characters and far too many cameo's to try and distract from the simple fact that not enough is explained to the viewer.

Avoid.@@@0 -If you cannot enjoy a chick flick, stop right now. If, however, you enjoy films that illustrate complex characters and provide extraordinary acting, read on.

Ann Grant Lord is dying. Her two daughters arrive to be at her bedside. Ann begins talking about people from her past of whom the daughters are unaware, and they question as to whether these lost acquaintances are real or imagined. They come to realize that these people from their mother's past are, indeed, real.

The story shifts, basically, between 1953 and circa 2000 with a few glimpses at Ann's life between those years. It was in 1953 that Ann met the love of her life and experienced her life's greatest tragedy.

One of Ann's two best friends from college, Lila, is being married. Ann's other best friend is Lila's brother, Buddy. Lila and Buddy are the children of a rich Newport family, whereas Ann is a cabaret singer living in Greenwich Village who wants to be a free spirit but is still bound by many of those 1950's conventions.

Soon after Ann arrives to be maid of honor at Lila's wedding, she meets the person who will become the pivotal character in the lives of the three - Harris. He is the adult son of a former servant of the family who grew up with Lila and Buddy and has gone on to become a physician in a small New England town. Ann immediately becomes enamored of Harris which adds a complication to the fact that Lila has always been in love with Harris and continues to be. Buddy, also, is in love with Harris, but being 1953, he has redirected that homosexual desire for Harris to his good friend, Ann for he cannot admit to himself that he has a sexual craving for another man. Buddy exhibits his inner frustration outwardly by being the alcoholic, wise-cracking bad boy of the family - much to the chagrin of his very proper and uptight parents.

Needless to say, all of these expressed and repressed emotions lead to tragedy - after all this is a chick flick.

In the present time, Ann's daughters have become distant from their mother and are suffering their own life realizations and doubts. Constance is working to emotional exhaustion trying to keep up her roll as perfect mother and wife. Nina, having always felt inferior, cannot maintain a relationship.

Stir all of these relationships into a span of fifty years, and you get an intriguing look at society, its values, and its effects upon the personalities and actions of the complex people involved.

All of the acting in Evening is excellent, but there are some extraordinary performances and scenes - along with two unique family relationships - that make this film so very, very special.

Claire Danes plays the 1950's Ann, and she does it in a style that clearly shows an intelligent woman of those times who is conflicted by what she is supposed to do as opposed to what she wants to do. Her performance is not easily forgettable.

Vanessa Redgrave plays the dying Ann whose mind shifts from the present, to the past, to flights of fantasy, and of course, Redgrave pulls it all off with sterling style.

Natasha Richardson - Redgrave's real daughter - plays Ann's daughter, Constance, in the film. The scenes between this real life mother and daughter playing fictional mother and daughter are an insightful treat to watch.

Toni Collette plays Ann's other daughter, Nina. Nina spends a good deal of her time being depressed and feeling sorry for herself while shutting out a good man who loves her as well as her mother and sister. Collette is perfect for a part such as this, but I have never seen her give a bad or unbelievable performance no matter what part she plays.

Mamie Gummer plays 1950's Lila and shows us a woman even more conflicted of her expected role in life than her good friend, Ann. She is very good.

Meryl Streep - Gummer's mother - plays present day Lila. What is there to say about Meryl Streep other than she always gives an insightful and rewarding performance.

Director Lajos Koltai states in the DVD extras that he sought out Glenn Close to play the relatively small part of Lila's mother because he felt she was the only actress he could think of to play one scene in the film. He certainly was right, and Close's performance in that one scene etches it in your mind. All the other scenes in which Close is Lila's very proper mother, and you get another performance to treasure.

There are three other scenes in the film, combined with the one featuring Close described above, that make the whole movie worth watching. On Lila's wedding day, Ann comes into her room and crawls into to bed with her friend to discuss Lila's misforgivings about her upcoming wedding to a man she clearly does not love. This scene is repeated fifty years later when Lila comes and crawls into bed with her dying friend Ann to talk about the lives they have lived. In this latter scene, Streep and Redgrave are enthralling.

The other memorable scene - at least to me - is when Buddy declares his love for Ann. Hugh Dancy as Buddy gives us a heartbreaking performance of a young man torn apart by his conflicting sexual feelings. His performance is superior.

Chick flick? Yes. A very special film with unbelievable acting, directing, and scenery? Definitely. I cannot recommend Evening too much.@@@1 -.... And after seeing this pile of crap you won't be surprised that it wasn't published

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

This is a terrible movie by any standards but when I point out that it's one of the worst movies that has the name Stephen King in the credits you can start to imagine how bad it is . The movie starts of with two characters staring open mouthed at a scene of horror :

" My god . What happened here ? "

" I don't know but they sure hate cats " *

The camera pans to the outside of a house where hundreds of cats are strung up dead and mutilated . Boy this guy is right , someone does hate cats and with a deduction like that he should be a policeman . Oh wait a minute , he is a policeman and when a movie starts with a cop making an oh so obvious observation you just know you're going to be watching a bad movie

The reason SLEEPWALKERS is bad is that it's very illogical and confused . We eventually find out the monsters of the title need the blood of virgins to survive . Would they not be better looking for a virgin in the mid west bible belt rather than an American coastal town ? Having said that at least we know of the monsters motives - That's the only thing we learn . We never learn how they're able to change shape or are able to make cars become invisible and this jars with the ending that seems to have been stolen from THE TERMINATOR . Monster mother walks around killing several cops with her bare hands or blowing them up via a police issue hand gun ( ! ) but if her monster breed is immune from police fire power then why do the creatures need the ability to change shape or become invisible ? The demise of the creatures is equally ill thought out as there killed by a mass attack of household cats . If they can be killed by cats then why did the monsters not kill all the cats that were lying around the garden ? There was a whole horde of moggies sitting around but the monsters never thought about killing them . I guess that's so the production team can come up with an ending . It was that they started the movie my complaint lies

We're treated to several scenes where famous horror movie directors like John Landis , Clive Barker and even Stephen King make cameos . I think the reason for this is because whenever a struggling unknown actor read the script they instantly decided that no matter what , they weren't going to appear in a movie this bad so Stephen King had to phone up his horror buddies in order to fill out the cast . That's how bad SLEEPWALKERS is

* Unbelievable as it seems that wasn't the worst line in the movie . The worst line is - " That cat saved my life "@@@0 -So many wonderful actresses in one film serve as a practical invitation to the local movie house so I duly responded. Here are some remarks..

Vanessa Redgrave is great even while lying in bed. She also looks very old and I don't think this is achieved with much make-up which is a good thing for the film but a sad thing for us cinema-goers. I think her aging got a bit harsh in recent years. Claire Danes continues her welcome return to the movies and exudes a definite warmth. Mamie Gummer's resemblance to her mother Merly Streep both in terms of physical appearance and acting style is so striking that I lost my concentration to the film for a couple of minutes after her entrance. She is surprisingly good; however such a resemblance has the danger of working against her favor. I agree with a previous comment: Natasha Richardson definitely had some plastic job done to her face. She certainly does not look like how I remember her from previous films ("Nell" for example.) Both she and Toni Collette sadly do not make much impression partly because they do not look convincing as sisters. Their interplay is weak. Toni Collette additionally is way too old for her character. Glenn Close and Meryl Streep had to have more screen time. Streep's performance actually is little more than a cameo. Her scenes on the other hand have bigger emotional resonance than the rest of the film. Eileen Atkins provides some welcome dry wit, especially in her second role as an imaginary nighttime companion to Redgrave's character. As for the men; Hugh Dancy enlivenes the film considerably even though he gives a broader performance than needed. As a matter of fact as soon as he exits the story it starts to drag. It is also to his credit that he manages to create the exact necessary sense of boyish charm in the viewer. Patrick Wilson on the other hand is a complete void at the center of the film. He also has the misfortune that the script is insufficient in explaining why three people (one of them a man) are so much smitten by this man. The backstory to this should have been developed more.

The cinematography is excellent as expected. However the main summer house set failed to convince me. It does not look natural on the top of that rocky hill, particularly with its grass patch in the front. A bit too cardboard like.

Overall, the film is a classy production, but a seen-it-all-before, cried-at-it-all-before feeling took over me during most of its duration and consequently it failed to make the kind of impact on me that I expected from a tearjerker. However, it still managed to make me thoughtful about the passing of time, about one's expectations from life and the extent to which these are fulfilled or not. Worth trying at least on DVD if not at the movies...@@@1 -So on the Chills Network on cable they are having "Vampire Month", I'm such a dork, but I love vampires. So after a few duds that they showed I was pretty disappointed, but then I noticed Sleepwalkers was written by Stephen King. So I decided to go ahead and check it out, well much to my surprise, this movie was really bad. Most Stephen King films are entertaining and some are very scary. While Sleepwalkers was bad, it was a beautiful kind of bad. I had a good time laughing at this movie and just taking it for what it was. I've never read Sleepwalkers, from what I understand this is the only real vampire story by King, so I can't really compare book to film. I don't know if it was just my TV, but Sleepwalkers looked like it was made for TV. The special effects were corny and the story was a bit far fetched, even if it is fantasy, it had a lot of problems.

Charles Brady and his mother Mary are vampires who feed off the life force of virgin women. They are considerably more resilient than humans and have powers of both telekinesis and illusion. Their one weakness is cats, who are not only able to see through their illusions but whose claws are capable of inflicting severe to fatal wounds upon them. They also maintain an incestuous relationship. Charles and Mary have taken up residence in a small Indiana town. Charles attends the local high school, and there he meets Tanya Robertson in his creative writing class. Tanya does not suspect the real reason why Charles wants her so much; to take her life force for his mother, who is starving. At first, it seems that Charles has fallen in love with Tanya. On their first date, however, a picnic at the nearby cemetery, Charles attempts to drain the life force from Tanya while kissing her. As it happens, Deputy Sheriff Andy Simpson who had earlier tried to pull Charles over for speeding, drives by the cemetery and notices Charles' car. When Tanya runs to him for help, Charles tracks Andy down and kills him. When Charles then turns to resume his life force-depleting make out session with Tanya, the deputy's cat, Clovis, rises to the occasion and nearly kills Charles by scratching him in the face and chest. Mortally wounded by Clovis, Charles staggers back home to Mary. Mary then seeks vengeance on Tanya's family.

So to sum this movie up basically you should expect the cheese to overflow. The scene where Charles attacks Tanya for the first time is very cliché and you almost vote for Charles to win just because Tanya is one of the dumbest female leads in horror movies. Then you gotta love the scene where Mary has a gun and shoots it at a cop car and somehow the whole thing explodes, God bless Hollywood explosions and exaggerations. I'm taking the movie for what it is, it's just so deliciously bad that it turns into a dark comedy for me that I could just enjoy making fun of. I'm not sure if this is what Stephen King wanted to see for his story, but he does have his typical cameo in the film. So my suggestion if you watch this movie, just take it for what it is and don't over think it, it's mindless entertainment with corny effects, bad casting, a silly story and enough cats to make the crazy cat lady from The Simpson's say "Wow, that's a lot of cats".

4/10@@@0 -The Danes character finally let's Buddy have the awful truth. ""Leave me alone, kiss men if you want to," she screams self-righteously in front of everyone, thus destroying the man who has been in love with her for so long. Nice girl. This might be the place to reconsider all of the giggly charm that Danes pours into this character. Great reason to feel sympathy for her lying in bed and dying, but hey, remember, there are no mistakes, except, maybe, seeing this film.

Wait a minute. This irony is intended! This is actually a masterpiece of ironic wit, yes! But somehow I doubt that's what the creators of this film had in mind, sadly. Maybe there are a few mistakes, after all.@@@1 -I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.

First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.

Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.

The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.

The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.

Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.

The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.

Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.

Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.@@@0 -After seeing the trailer for Evening, you will probably first think about how great the cast is involved, (I mean they even got Rocky Horror's own Brad, Barry Bostwick, to show the world he is still acting), and the next second about how they just showed us the entire movie. While not entirely true, the film is pretty much summarized nicely in the trailer, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is a story about a dying woman who is remembering a time very long ago when she met the love of her life—the one that got away. Her daughters hear her reminiscing about people they have never heard of and the story of what happened when she and Harris killed Buddy soon plays out. No matter what happens, though, the film is not about these people and what they do, good or bad. It is a vehicle to show that there are no mistakes in life. What may be regret could in fact be the one instance in your life that needed to occur in order for the good times that follow to ever happen.

The story itself is nicely told and very obviously adapted from literature. Our filmmakers here decide to tell the story by intercutting between the present (Ann on her deathbed), dreamstate (Ann hallucinating by combining the present with the past in her mind), and the past (Ann meeting Harris at her best friend's wedding). There are a few times where the cuts are a tad abrupt, and the progression of the past is so good that you may find the present stuff a bit longwinded and boring, but overall it is handled better than at first thought. It's not as though Ann's life now is uninteresting, it just has less to do with the plot then it does with the morals being learned. While I grant that the parallels to the past help alleviate the problems for Ann's children currently, I was still a bit too enraptured in the wedding to care as much as I maybe should have. There are some nice moments, though, for instance, the crash that awakens Ann from slumber being mirrored later on, and the cryptic dreams which bridge both worlds together.

It is the acting that makes the flashbacks so enthralling and fluid. These performances are completely riveting to the point where you get a bit angry when our time period has changed and we must wait to find out what happens next. No matter how annoying I find Claire Danes' angry/sad/crying face that exists in every role she plays, the girl is good at what she does. I find myself warming to her talents more and more lately and this one just furthers that thawing. Patrick Wilson is always great in whatever I've seen him in. You must give him credit for picking some really fantastic roles and never doing much more than one film a year. From Angels in America to last year's Little Children, the guy will soon blow up, but hopefully he will stay true to the craft and not cash-in. Heck even Mamie Gummer is good as the younger version of her real life mother Meryl Streep, (who surprisingly is in the film very little). She is still rough around the edges, but she was wonderful at expressing the emotional turmoil her character goes through on her wedding day. The real revelation, though, is Hugh Dancy. I feel I've seen him in many things, but in fact it seems only in King Arthur. Dancy literally steals every scene he is in and the way in which his role of Buddy is devastated by love/alcohol/life is etched in his facial expressions throughout. Without his performance, the flashback sequences could have fallen into the somewhat forgettable category as the rest of the film and made the experience as a whole much worse.

While not wholly original in the ways of what the writers are after, Evening does bring intelligence and craft to the table. You may be able to fault the length and amount of cut scenes to tie everything together, but you can't argue that the acting isn't worth sticking around for. Maybe a film version of the wedding alone could have been something to see, however, when it is all put together, there may also be something coming out of it that couldn't have been achieved without all the other story threads. Either way, the payoff is worth the ride for the most part and each plane of reality finishes with its own subtle beauty and lives up to what had come before it.@@@1 -Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.

This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it.

Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.

Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.

Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.@@@0 -While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.

"Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide")@@@1 -Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a "fish out of water" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the "fish" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.

(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the "in your face" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.)

As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).

All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.@@@0 -"Protocol" is a hit-and-miss picture starring Goldie Hawn as a bubbly cocktail waitress who one night saves the life of a visiting Arab from an assassination attempt. The woman immediately becomes a celebrity, and gets a new job working for the U.S. Government. Will the corridors of power in our nation's capital ever be the same? Hawn is excellent as usual even though "Protocol" isn't as funny as her best film "Private Benjamin". But it's still a good movie, and I did laugh alot.

*** (out of four)@@@1 -This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.

The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.

Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.@@@0 -I love this film and it is such a wonderful example of a family jeopardy, a romantic love story, and a very sad story plot. Everything was just so perfect and excellent about this film. It was such a great mixture of actors and actresses and with some laughs and a lot of cries this film deserves to get plenty of awards. With the mention of beautiful scenario, and although I would relate this film to The Notebook and The Family Stone, it was sort of much more cunning, sad, and brilliant than those films. The Evening tells of a love story between an old woman dreaming back to her younger years, and her two daughters stay by her side while she is not well. The story dating back is so strongly told and wonderful I was sitting on the edge of my seat. You really get to know all the characters and by the end, I was wanting to watch it all over again. This is a amazingly sad and vividly acted and plotted movie that is really one of a kind and should be seen by all for how wonderful it really is. All the performances are astonishing and the film captures your attention from the very beginning and never lets go. I loved it, and am so glad that I watched it for it was truly an astonishing film...@@@1 -This was a "cute" movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.

There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.

Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as "Hank Martin." Rhonda Fleming ("Alisande La Carteloise") was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair.

It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much.@@@0 -This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl

Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic.

This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"!@@@1 -What's with the murky video in the beginning and sporadically throughout the movie? It's like someone put muddy water on the camera lens.

The violence and nudity might turn some people off but, that, along with the mostly bad acting is what makes a good cult movie I suppose.

My favorite line is delivered by Tarquin the Vampire, "Alas, your breed is dumb." Okay, no one should ever say "alas" in a movie line unless they're English and living in the 18th century.

The acting by the Van Helsing character and bad girl "Rally" isn't bad. I also liked Master Little played by Ron Little. Wicked martial arts! Don't take it too seriously and you'll enjoy it.@@@0 -I had the pleasure of viewing this beautiful film last night, with the wonderful addition of a question and answer session with the director following the viewing. I suspect that the first commenter has never lost a parent or someone very close to them in death. I have had many such losses, and this movie spoke to me. One of the major themes is how we don't deal with questions/issues/stories with our loved ones until it's too late--they're too incapacitated or dead before that happens. Talk to your loved ones, listen to and record their stories, tell people you love them, resolve differences. I loved the message that there are no mistakes. I love the director's portrayal of the relationship of the two daughters--as one of six siblings, it's clear to me he understood how complex those relationships are. His history as a cinematographer also comes through loud and clear--what a beautiful movie! The casting is outstanding--a film not to be missed!@@@1 -Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.

The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.

But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).

If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.

I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.@@@0 -I saw this movie Sunday afternoon. I absolutely loved this movie. I loved everything about it, from the sappy moments of mothers and daughters to the scenes where Mamie Gummer (Lila) is crying because of her poor decision in marrying a man for her parents and not because she is truly in love. I loved these moments because they were just so real. At first I was seriously scared because I was hoping that it would not end up like Bobby, which was a great cast but a poorly written movie with no real meat to it. But during the middle of the movie i felt completely different. You will laugh and you will cry but in the end you will want to see Evening one more time. Trust me when i say GO SEE IT!@@@1 -An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.

Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.

But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4.@@@0 -Halfway through Lajos Koltai's "Evening," a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: "Can you tell me where my life went?" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.

Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's "Away from Her." Hollywood might have turned "Evening" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.

Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of "Mephisto," and director of "Fateless" - created a subtle ensemble work with a "Continental feel," the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.

Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise "Evening" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.

Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.

And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of "Evening" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.

As with "Away from Her," "Evening" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.@@@1 -not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to.

the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution@@@0 -Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening.@@@1 -I had the opportunity to preview this film as a member of a test audience, and the only thing which kept me in my seat was the chance to fill out the post-screening survey. I felt the film's biggest problem was its lack of a main plot. Instead, it was composed of (too) many sub-plots competing for screen time. As a result, there is not a single character who is developed enough for the audience to form any sort of attachment. What the director and producer failed to do was show us why we should care what happens to the characters. In fact any one sub-plot and the characters associated with it could have been removed altogether without serious detriment to the film. (The time gained would have allowed for the much needed development of the remaining sub-plots and characters.) Simply put, The Hungry Bachelors Club's plate is overcrowded with side dishes and appetizers when an entre is desired.@@@0 -I caught Evening in the cinema with a lady friend. Evening is a chick flick with no apologies for being such, but I can say with some relief that it's not so infused with estrogen that it's painful for a red-blooded male to watch. Except for a single instance at the very end of the movie, I watched with interest and did not have to turn away or roll my eyes at any self-indulgent melodrama. Ladies, for their part, will absolutely love this movie.

Ann Lord is elderly, bed-ridden and spending her last few days on Earth as comfortably as possible in her own home with her two grown daughters at her side. Discomfited by the memories of her past, Ann suddenly calls out a man's name her daughters have never heard before: Harris. While both of her daughters silently contemplate the significance of their mother's strong urge to recall and redress her ill-fated affair with this mysterious man at this of all times, Ann lapses back in her head to the fateful day she met Harris - and in doing so, lost the youthful optimism for the future that we all inevitably part ways with.

Both Ann and her two daughters - one married with children, one a serial "commitophobe" - struggle with the central question of whether true love really exists, and perhaps more importantly, if true love can endure the test of time. Are we all one day fated to realize that love never lasts forever? Will we all realize that settling for the imperfect is the only realistic outcome? The subtle fact that the aged Ann is still wrestling with an answer to these questions on her deathbed is not lost on her two daughters.

The cinematography for Evening is interesting - most of the film is spent in Ann's mind as she recalls the past, and for that reason I think the film was shot as if it was all deliberately overexposed, to give everyone an ethereal glow (and thus make it very obvious that all of this is not real, but occurred in the past). Claire Danes is beautiful (appearing to be really, really tall, though just 5' 5" in reality), and is absolutely captivating in one climactic scene where her singing talents are finally put to the test.

You can't really talk trash about the cast, which leads off with Claire Danes and doesn't let up from there: Vanessa Redgrave, Patrick Wilson, Meryl Streep and Glenn Close fill out the other major and minor roles in the film.

I can't really say anything negative about this film at all, though Hugh Dancy's struggle to have his character emerge from utter one-dimensionality is in the end a total loss. Playing the spoiled, lovable drunk offspring of the obscenely rich who puts up a front of great bravado but is secretly scared stiff of never amounting to anything probably doesn't offer much in the way of character exploration - he had his orders and stuck to them.

In the end, gentlemen, your lady friend will most certainly weep, and while you'll likely not feel nearly as affected, the evening will definitely not be a waste for the time spent watching Evening. Catch it in theatres or grab it as a rental to trade off for points for when you want to be accompanied to a viewing of Die Hard 4 or the upcoming Rambo flick. It'll be your little secret that this viewing didn't really cost you much at all.@@@1 -I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further.

Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction.

If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex?

These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else.

Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.@@@0 -Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.

I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.

It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.

I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.

Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are.@@@1 -This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)@@@0 -Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles.@@@1 -How can a movie have Ozzy Osbourne and still suck? I just don't get it. Trick or Treat managed to do it. This sucks and likes it.

Trick or Treat is one of those movies I have to warn people about. It is a vomit-inducing vile atrocity just begging to be viewed so you can feel that much worse about yourself. Trick or Treat has no redeeming factors.

For a movie about heavy metal, it sure doesn't seem to grasp what heavy metal is or what it represents. This movie manages to make heavy metal look lame and this was in 1986, probably one of heavy metal's strongest hours. That is quite a feat, however negative.

Trick or Treat = so bad you will be angry at yourself for having watched it. That simple equation will hopefully keep you away from this brainless and gutless film.@@@0 -I'm 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are "You can't keep a good dog down" and that song about sharing, I think it's called "What's mine is yours". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 7/10.@@@1 -Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party@@@0 -The first "side-story" in the universal century Gundam universe presents a refreshing new look at the war between earth and the space colonies. The focus is no longer on a small group of individuals who would go on to play pivotal roles in the conflict, but on the everyday civilian population and how the war is seen through their eyes.

The story does contain some Gundam staples, its premise being the attempts by a ZEON squad to capture an experimental Gundam, but it the execution of the plot that made this show so interesting to watch. This series focuses on the experiences of a young boy named Alfred and the relationship between his neighbor, Christina Mckenzie who is secretly a Federation pilot and a newbie Zeon pilot named Bernie Wiseman. Alfred develops a sort of "brotherly love" for Bernie while our young Zeon pilot also falls for Christina.

"War in the Pocket" proves that you do not need a sweeping epic tale about special individuals to make for a good war story. There are no uber ace pilots or large scale fleet battles to be seen here. This short 6 episode OVA focuses a lot more on character emotional drama over other themes like politics or philosophy and i love how realistically portrayed the characters are. Alfred is your typical everyday kid who plays violent computer games and thinks the armed forces is cool. He is then given a crash course in the horrible realities of war. The unlikely friendship and bonding between Bernie and Christina, each not knowing the fact that they are soldiers on different sides of the war, is played very real without going overboard with the romance drama stuff. Same goes for the endearing relationship between Alfred and Bernie. That being said, i would not want to spoil much of the story here, but it makes it a whole lot more heart wrenching to watch the tragedies that unfold as the show moves along all the way to its emotionally devastating twist ending.

Despite its lack of action, this show never falls into the category of "boring". The characters are just that engaging enough to carry the whole show. Not to worry as there are a number of mobile suit action scenes scattered here and there. Each are beautifully animated on a level that surpasses that of an OVA and are sure to satisfy the craving for some "mandatory" mobile suit battles in a Gundam series.

Normally watching anime in Japanese or English, i would leave up to personal preference. But in this case, i strongly recommend the English voice track over the Japanese one. Not only do the characters, whom all except Alfred are caucasian, sound more believable in English but the performances of the English voice cast are on par and even surpass the Japanese one, instilling each character with such realistic emotions and intonations that they sound just the acting in some live action TV dramas.

In short, this show does not try to impress the audience. What it does is conveys numerous heartwarming themes that hit closest to home especially the death of innocence on the battlefield and the horrors of war through the eyes of a child. A truly moving little story that deserves more credit than it is being given.@@@1 -Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect!

I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.@@@0 -This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake.

This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.

Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.

Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).

After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.

Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.

Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period.

Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.@@@1 -Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.@@@0 -All Dogs Go To Heaven is on a par with Watership Down for scary kiddies films. Both were dark and pretty sinister, but at the same time the most mesmerising experience a child can have. This was one of my favourite films as a kid. I was in love with Charlie and at the tender age of about five or six, I'll admit... I had a crush on a cartoon dog. All Dogs tells the dark story of lovable cad Charlie and his partner in crime Itchy. The story starts with Charlie escaping from death row and swaggering off to the nearest club to do some gambling. Of course, as a child, I didn't understand the concept of this film. I loved the songs and the animation but as I've got older I do begin to wonder why I wasn't disturbed by this film as a youngster. It deals with pretty adult themes --- gambling, murder, hell and prison but in a world of goody-goody Disney films, it's something every child should watch once.

Yes, there's some sort of crazy transvestite crocodile scene and the hell scenes scare me more now that when I was little, but it delivers such a poignant message that should not be ignored by parents!@@@1 -This movie does not rock, as others have said. I found it really boring and silly. The story is about this metal high school kid who idolizes this really bad heavy metal singer. The singer dies, but not before making one last album that is to be played over the radio at, of course, midnight on Halloween (which would actually make it November 1st, a much less potent date to be sure). The kid gets a copy of the record and it contains secret hidden back-play messages. It also is the key that opens the door so that the really bad metal singer can return to bring havoc and death to the world.

The first part of this film is not a horror film at all, but rather an After School Special. We see the metal kid (the outsider) tormented over and over by the popular kids. And he fails to learn the most important lesson in high school movies: When the cool kids who bully you suddenly invite you to a party, DON'T GO! It is a trap. Especially if it is a pool party. Anybody surprised when he ends up in the water?? It was such an After School Special that I kept waiting for Melissa Sue Anderson to show up and teach Jody Foster a lesson.

So back to the horror part of the film. So this metal kid gets some powers and instead of using them to kill the bully boys (which would have made much more sense), he freaks out and tries to protect all of the bully boys and girls from harm. What? A sensitive hero? What fun is that in a horror movie? Thank goodness Carrie White did not follow this lesson. He actually tries to PREVENT having the music played at the Halloween Dance, the very music that could unleash a power to kill all the kids who had been mean to him. If it were me, I would have put that music on, and pronto.

The rest of the movie is about this metal kid going around town trying to kill the horrible metal star he idolized. Why not partner with him and REALLY do some damage. Why you ask? It seems he is in love with one of the popular girls and does not want her hurt..more appropriate for a Molly Ringwald film. Is this a horror film or an episode of Beauty and the Beast? The movie just goes on and on at this point, with no scares, horror, or anything worth watching. If you went to high school in the late 80s like I did, this movie is fun to have a little flashback to fashions and big hair, but that is it for this film. Skip it and stay home and just listen to some KISS.@@@0 -I saw this film when it was originally released in 1989. I enjoyed it then, and I still do now. But what I realize now is that this is quite "adult" for a film with a G rating, especially the notion of dying and going to Heaven. Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise work wonderfully together, and Reynolds' singing voice is appropriate for a junkyard dog. There are some good songs ranging from upbeat ("Let's Make Music Together") to downright emotional ("Home to My Heart"). I found the plot good, although it does go off on a tangent once or twice. The final scene of the film with Charlie and Anne-Marie is one of the saddest I've ever seen in animation. A film worth experiencing.@@@1 -Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.

Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.

As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher.

But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.

Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.

Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie.@@@0 -Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.

WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, "no surprises whatsoever", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as "... you can't keep a good dog down", "... let's make music forever", and "... welcome to being dead" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!

WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.

OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)

Happy Viewing!@@@1 -A bad one.

Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.

Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.

Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.

2 out of 10@@@0 -My dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.

(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.

In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.

Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.

Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other "poor." The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.

Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.

The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you.@@@1 -Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.

It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.@@@0 -First things first, I was never once scared of this underrated gem as a kid ("Little Mermaid" on the other hand...). As my title says this was one of my fav childhood movies that I still love as a teenager. It's a beautiful, bittersweet movie about a misfit German Shepherd called Charlie (fantasticaly voiced by Burt Reynolds) who is killed by his boss/partner in crime (is name ha,ha is Carface). Charlie is sent straight to heaven by default because "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind". Chalie gets sent back to Earth 'cause he winded up his life clock where he gets into even more mischief with his best friend, Itchy and a little orphan girl, Anne-Marie. I used to watch this all the time as a kid and I still sometimes watch it. Anyways, it's a beautiful bittersweet film as I said before that might just leave a tear in your eye...@@@1 -Antonioni, by making this film, had assumed the role of Papa Smurf to all the little long-haired, American, radical student-Smurfs. He had taken them under the guiding protection of his European communist wings, showing appreciation and support for their confused American ways. (These Smurfs are red and wear blue, not the other way around.) The radical Smurfs were happy to get the guidance of a wise old man with gray hair who regularly preys to the God of all long-haired Smurfs, Lenin the Communist - another wise old man whose beard made the Smurfs take him even more seriously, for it symbolized something wise, though they did not quite know why they regarded the beard to have this kind of deep effect on them. Castro, another wise bearded man, has often profited from this confusion and exuded magical powers with his beard over his naive overseas admirers. (Not to mention Che Guevara: that beard has a certain je-ne-sais-pas-quoi about it, makes one want to immediately embrace Marx and his lovely, pacifistic teachings…) The film starts with a muddled meeting of radically stupid radical students, who engage in dialogues that truly redefine the word "confused". As confused as a blind-folded dog falling of a high-story building into a bottomless pit. Suddenly, the movie's "hero" (well, Antonioni's hero) rises up and says something to his pathetic left-wing peers and then leaves, hoping that this display of "mega-coolness" will improve his James Dean image and vastly increase his chances of getting laid with the best "chicks" in the next mass hippie orgy. Eventually he gets into trouble with cops (i.e. pigs) at a rally, and spends the movie under the blue American capitalist skies, looking for freedom… Or something like that.

Antonioni's predictable assault on capitalism is not only intellectually hollow, but has (or had) nothing new to offer; it's just the same old trigger-happy one-dimensional cops, businessmen discussing business deals (and what's wrong with that, isn't that how Antonioni's movies get made?), and endless shots of TV commercials and billboards advertising the oh-so morally decadent products for the abhorrent, selfish, and greedy right-wing rabble-population who thinks of no one but themselves, their families, their work, and their children.

Papa Smurf Antonioni, just like his long-haired Smurfs and Smurfettes of the late 60s, failed to notice the most obvious and vital aspect about their silly movement: they were allowed to have their laughable meetings and express their anti-establishment opinions freely within that very establishment, whereas the students in those countries whose left-wing systems they admired, did not (and still do not). By far the greatest irony about the hippies - and Antonioni, naturally, failed to realize this as well (his judgment being clouded by cocaine-snorting and an excessive intake of LSD) - is that hippies were (are) the garbage-residue of capitalism. This is an incredible irony. Only in a successfully-functioning capitalist system can you find that species called "hippie"; a spoiled, ungrateful, and selfish bunch of middle and upper-middle class losers.

The film itself seems to go on forever. Antonioni takes his sweet time with getting on with it, while including overlong scenes of pointlessness, with a high dullness factor. His attempts at symbolism are annoying and trite. His statements are highly dubious, at best. This film is Antonioni's way of saying that violent revolution is the solution. And this is what we get from an old, saturated, filthy-rich, fat film-maker who lives in villas and dines in the best French and Italian restaurants.

I don't remember seeing any major Western movie about the Tiananmen massacre of thousands of students in China. But when one Western student gets shot for waving Che Guevara's face into all our faces, we get ten major films about it at once. I suppose this means that a Chinese life is worth a thousand times less than a Western one – at least to the left-wing hypocrites who infest movies.

If you're a Marxist neo-hippy and disliked this awful review, please klick "NO" below.@@@0 -i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD

but, i love this film, its a true classic.

xx Maverick xx 10/10@@@1 -This film is definitely a product of its times and seen in any other context, it is an incredibly stupid movie. Heck, even seen in its proper context, it's pretty bad!! Mostly, this is due to a silly plot and very self-indulgent direction by the famed Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni. In this case, he tried to meld a very artsy style film with an anti-establishment hippie film and only succeeded in producing a bomb of gargantuan proportions.

The film begins with a rap session where a lot of "with it" students sit around saying such platitudes as "power to the people" and complaining about "the man". Considering most of these hippies have parents sending them to college, it seemed a bit silly for these privileged kids to be complaining so loudly and shouting revolutionary jargon. A bit later, violence between the students and the "establishment pigs" breaks out and a cop is killed. Our "hero", Mark, may or may not have done it, but he is forced to run to avoid prosecution. Instead of heading to Mexico or Canada, he does what only a total moron would do--steals an airplane and flies it to the Mojave Desert! There, he meets a happen' chick and they then sit around philosophizing for hours. Then, they have sex in one of the weirder sex scenes in cinema history. As they gyrate about in the dust, suddenly other couples appear from no where and there is a huge orgy scene. While you see a bit of skin (warranting an R-rating), it's not as explicit as it could have been. In fact, it lasts so long and seems so choreographed that it just boggles the mind. And of course, when they are finished, the many, many other couples vanish into thin air.

Oddly, later the couple paint the plane with some help and it looks a lot like a Peter Max creation. Despite improving the look of the plane, the evil cops respond to his returning the plane by shooting the nice revolutionary. When the girl finds out, she goes into a semi-catatonic state and the movie ends with her seemingly imagining the destruction of her own fascist pig parents and all the evil that they stand for (such as hard work and responsibility). Instead of one simple explosion, you see the same enormous house explode about 8 times. Then, inexplicably, you see TVs, refrigerators and other things explode in slow motion. While dumb, it is rather cool to watch--sort of like when David Letterman blows things up or smashes things on his show.

Aside from a dopey plot, the film suffers from a strong need for a single likable character as well as extensive editing. At least 15 minutes could easily be removed to speed things up a bit--especially since there really isn't all that much plot or dialog. The bottom line is that this is an incredibly dumb film and I was not surprised to see it listed in "The Fifty Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. It's a well deserved addition to this pantheon of crap. For such a famed director to spend so much money to produce such a craptastic film is a crime!

Two final observations. If you like laughing at silly hippie movies, also try watching THE TRIAL OF BILLY JACK. Also, in a case of art imitating life, the lead, Mark Frechette, acted out his character in real life. He died at age 27 in prison a few years after participating in an act of "revolution" in which he and some friends robbed a bank and killed an innocent person. Dang hippies!!@@@0 -I wish kids movies were still made this way; dark and deep. There was (get this) character development (and Charlie is the epitome of the dynamic character), plot development, superb animation, emotional involvement, and a rational, relatable, and consistent theme. If not for the handful of song-and-dance routines, you would never have thought this was a kids movie, and this is why I give it such a high rating. This movie is an excellent film, let alone for a kids' movie. Which brings me to my second point: this has got to be the darkest "kids'" movie I've seen in quite some time, this coming from a 22-year-old. I'd be shocked to see any child under the age of 8 not completely terrified throughout a great deal of the latter half and some of the first half of the movie, and it all ends with one of the saddest endings you could ever come across (ala "Jurassic Bark", for those of you who are 'Futurama' fans), and this is what makes this movie so good. Just because the movie universally evokes emotions we don't normally like to feel and assume are bad does not make the movie itself bad; in fact, it means it succeeded. Good funny movies are supposed to make us laugh; good horror movies are supposed to make us scared; good sad movies are supposed to make us sad. My point is, good movies are supposed to MOVE you, not simply entertain; this movie moved me.

Also, this movie is incredibly violent by today's standards for a kids' movie and contains subject matter that, by today's standards, may not be suitable for some children. Parents, I'd say watch it first. I'm not usually one to say anything about this kind of thing, but I just saw this yesterday and it came as a surprise even to me.@@@1 -Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film.

I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!

Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.@@@0 -This is one of the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.

All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go@@@1 -I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most "normal" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.

Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.

No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an "art" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.

In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star "nonactor" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting "accident".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.@@@0 -All Dog's Go to Heaven is an animated kid's movie like no other. Gambling, drinking, death, guns and Hell are all prominent in the plot, and though kids will get very little of it, adults will be scratching their heads as to why this movie was made to feel like some sort of gangster movie. The actual movie isn't explicit in any way, it's just an odd combination to make a kid's movie on.

Charlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is a player dog, who owns half a casino with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). After getting drunk (A dog....getting drunk...in a kid's movie. It just sounds weird.), Charlie is tricked and murdered by Carfax. When in heaven, he finds a way to come back to Earth, but he will no longer be allowed in Heaven. He still goes back to Earth and meets up with his old friend Itchy (Dom Deluise), and plans payback on Carfax. Meanwhile, Carfax has a little orphan girl Anne Marie held captive because of her amazing ability to talk to all species of animals, which helps predict races. Charlie and Itchy free her, and try to help her find a family, while learning a lot about themselves.

This movie is one of the few non-Disney that will appeal to both kids and adults. Kids will enjoy the funny characters and lively animation, while adults will enjoy the nice, sweet plot, and the more than normal developed characters. One thing that keeps this down, is that it's a musical. Normally, that's a good thing, but the music here is honestly terrible. They tend to jump around, almost sounding ad libbed, with next to no instrumental backing. In fact, these are probably the worst songs I've ever heard in an animated movie, but luckily, the rest of the film is strong enough to not fall apart because of some bad notes.

The ending of this movie works, but I honestly hate it. It's sad, but happy, but more sad than happy, and makes the movie feel like it needs a sequel. Considering how bad the sequel made to this was, I wish the ending wouldn't have warranted a sequel and it would've wrapped up into a nice, super happy ending. This is one of the few movies I feel this way about, but I do.

Overall, this is a nice family film, with odd themes thrown in, but nonetheless, good entertainment.

My rating: *** out of ****. 85 mins. G.@@@1 -In his 1966 film "Blow Up", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of "Blow Up", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.

With "Zabriskie Point" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of "Blow Up" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly?

The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in "The Passenger", Mark just wants to be free.

As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.

In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.

The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!

Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised "Zabriskie Point" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.

Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of "Fight Club", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?

3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, "Blow Up". As such, "Zabrinskie Point" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say "Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!"

There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight "the system", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like "Network", "Cool Hand Luke", "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Spartacus". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the "spirit of revolution" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.

Then you have films like "Fight Club", "Zabriskie Point" and "Falling Down", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.

Then you have the "flight rather than fight" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like "The Passenger", "Red Desert" and "Badlands" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.

Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's "The Lives of Others", Ashby's "Bound For Glory" and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm.@@@0 -All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Most Cutest Animated Film To Have Dogs In 1989. The Previous Don Bluth Film The Land Before Time(1988) Became A Success. Dogs Are So Cute As Little Mice. Aw, I Just Want To Hug Them When They're Cute. Where Was I? Oh, Yes. Its Animation Is Beautiful, The Characters Are Great When They're Perfectly Voiced And The Songs Are Cute And Touching. It Opened In November 17 1989 The Same Date As The Little Mermaid Produced By Walt Disney Feature Animation.

The Part Where Charlie Got Killed By Carface Was So Unforgivable. Carface Is So Mean Because He Wanted To Kill Charlie. Shame On Him! The Love Survive Song Performed By Irene Cara And Freddie Jackson Was So Beautiful. All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Best Animated Movie Ever.@@@1 -There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.@@@0 -When Gundam0079 became the movie trilogy most of us are familiar with, a lot of it was sheer action and less of anything else. This OVA is kinda the opposite. Though there're only half a dozen episodes, it isn't filled with action, but emotional things. The two main action sequences in this, I believe, are enough to satisfy me. After seeing so many gundam series, movies, and OVAs, I was completely ready for a civilian-esquire movie. This movie did a fantastic job of that. What makes this movie stand out is that shows both sides of the war have good and bad people. It made the Zeons seem more human rather than the original movies where they're depicted as the second rise of evil Nazis. Most people that don't like anime that I've forced to watch this movie (lol), liked it. So, I'd recommend it to a lot of people just for the anti-war story. If you're a Gundam fan, and haven't seen this, you shouldn't be reading this; you should already be watching it right now.@@@1 -Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.

Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.@@@0 -I can understand why some people like this movie, and why some people don't. For me, though, I really like it, even if I noticed some good bits, and not so impressive bits. The animation was actually excellent, like Charlie's dream. The characters were a mixed bag, the best being Anne-Marie, voiced by the late Judith Barsi.(I was physically ill when I read what happened to her) Also, Carface is a very convincing villain,especially voiced by the wonderful Vic Tayback(I particularly loved "Morons I'm surrounded by Morons") and along with Rasputin and Warren T.Rat is probably the most memorable of all the Don Bluth villains. Charlie and Itchy only just lacked the same sparkle, but I loved King Gator and his song. Some of the film is very haunting, like Annabelle's "You can never come come back", which kind of scares me still. Unfortunately, there were some bits I didn't like so much. The story had a tendency to become clumsy and unfocused, but Disney's Black Cauldron suffered from the same problem. Also there were some dark scenes, that young children would find upsetting, but the ending is very poignant. However the biggest flaw was the rather bland songs and the way they were sung. None of them in particular stick out, with exception of "Let's Make Music Together" and "Love Survives", and Burt Reynolds can't sing and Dom DeLuise has done much better singing. All in all, a watchable movie, that could have been more, but is definitely memorable, and I would definitely watch it again. 7/10. Bethany Cox@@@1 -Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season!@@@0 -I love All Dogs Go to Heaven even though I'm a guy. This and The Land Before Time are the best animated films that Don Bluth has made! In the movie Gharlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is helped by his friend Itchy (Dom DeLuise) freedom out of the pound in New Orleans 1939. Charlie who's in casino business wants to share equal with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). Carface who is unwilling to share the equal with Charlie pushes a car on a bridge onto Charlie killing him! Charlie enters heaven and meets Annabelle (Melba Moore) who shows Charlie that his time is up by showing him a watch that has stopped and she explains that All Dogs Go to Heaven because all dogs are naturally good! Charlie hides the stop watch behind his back and switches it back and he returns to Earth alive with Annabelle screaming You can never come back! Charlie reunites with Itchy and they go and explore soon to find out that Carface has not only attempted to murder Charlie he has also kidnapped a little orphan Girl named Ann Marie (Judith Barsi). When Carface leaves Charlie and Itchy help Ann Marie escape. The next day Charlie Itchy and Ann Marie go to look for money! Ann Marie sees a couple who she thinks would make great parents for her! While Ann Marie talks to the couple Charlie sneaks up behind the man and steals his wallet! Charlie Ann Marie and Itchy then go to a horse race where they bet the man's money that a horse will win the race! The horse they said would win winds up winning and Charlie, Itchy, and Ann Marie are payed $1,000 for the bet! Charlie promises Ann Marie he'll use the money to give to the poor but winds up buying a new casino and gambling and buys pizza for his friend Flo (Loni Anderson) and her puppies. Soon Ann Marie has found out that Charlie had stolen the wallet from the man and used his money on the horse race and everything! Charlie sad about this has a dream about going to Hell and the Devil! Soon Charlie awakens and finds out that Ann Marie is gone! She has left to give the wallet back to the couple who forgive her about the wallet and invite her to breakfast! Charlie asks Ann Marie to leave with him and she does pretending to be sick but are captured by mice who try to feed them to King Gator but they manage to escape! Soon Carface shows up and captures Ann Marie. He plans to drown her but Charlie comes to the rescue and calls on King Gator who eats Carface. Charlie's time is up and he must die again. Itchy with the help of the other dogs finds the couple who took Ann Marie in and get them to come with them to where Ann Marie is. They are there in time to save Ann Marie but are too late to save Charlie who's time has ended! Charlie who is awarded for his heroic effort for saving Ann Marie is welcomed back to Heaven but before he enters he says good-bye to Ann Marie who has been adopted by the couple and asks her to take care of Itchy for him. She says yes and tells Charlie she loves him and good-bye! Charlie enters Heaven again as it's said All Dogs Go to Heaven! Filled with wonderful animation, characters, and story Don Bluth has proved to us again that he is a good animator! It's too bad this movie was release the same year Little Mermaid which is my favorite Disney movie! They both came out in 1989 which was the year before I was born! I guess I'll have to call them both the Best Animated Features of 1989! 10 out of 10!@@@1 -Need a lesson in pure, abject failure?? Look no further than "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom", an abysmal, dirt-poor, disgrace of a flick. As we all know, decent moovies tend to sprout horrible, horrible offspring: "Halloween" begat many, many bad 80's slasher flicks; "Mad Max" begat many, many bad 80's "futuristic wasteland fantasy" flicks; and "Conan the Barbarian" begat a whole slew of terrible, horrible, incredibly bad 80's sword-and-sorcery flicks. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" scrapes the bottom of that 80's barrel, in a way that's truly insulting to barrels. A young runt named Simon recaptured his "good kingdom" from an evil sorcerer with the help of a mangy rug, a garden gnome, a topless bimbo mermaid, and a tired-looking, pudgy Bo Svenson. Svenson("North Dallas Forty", "Inglorious Bastards", "Delta Force"), a long-time b-moovie muscleman, looks barely able to swing his aluminum foil sword. However, he manages to defeat the forces of evil, which consist of the evil sorcerer, "Shurka", and his army of badly costumed monsters, giants, and midgets. At one point, a paper mache bat on a string attacks, but is eaten by a 1/2 hidden sock puppet, pitifully presented as some sort of dragon. The beginning of the film consists of what can only politely be described as bits of scenes scooped up from the cutting-room floor of udder bad moovies, stitched together in the vain hope of setting the scene for the film, and over-earnestly narrated by some guy who never appears again. Words cannot properly convey the jaw-dropping cheapness of this film; the producers probably spent moore moolah feeding Svenson's ever expanding gullet than on the cheesy fx of this flick. And we're talkin' Brie here, folks... :=8P Director Hector Olivera("Barbarian Queen") presents this mish-mash in a hopelessly confused, confuddled, and cliched manner, destroying any possible hint of clear, linear storytelling. The acting is dreadful, the production levels below shoe-string, and the plot is one tired cliche after another paraded before our weary eyes. That they actually made a sequel(!!!) makes the MooCow's brain whirl. James Horner's("Braveheart", "Titanic","The Rock") cheesy moosic from "Battle Beyond the Stars" was lifted, screaming and kicking, and mercilessly grafted onto this turkey - bet this one doesn't pop up on his resume. Folks, you gotta see this to believe it. The MooCow says as a cheapo rent when there is NOTHING else to watch, well, it's moore fun than watching dust bunnies mate. Barely. :=8P@@@0 -This is one of the greatest movies ever maybe even the greatest movie ever. I had forgotten about the movie for about 12 years. Until I saw an add on TV for ADGTH and it brought back fond memories of me watching it when I was a little kid. And when I watched it a few nights ago I became addicted to the movie. Usually I don't like animated family movies but this one is special it is the perfect family movie.

The ending of the movie always touches my heart and saddens me very much but that is what makes this movie amazing better than all of the garbage that is coming out for kid movies today. I mean the movie is G rated and it is about 2 dogs who are involved with gambling, there is a lot of smoking, drinking, murder, death and hell depicted in the movie. Which I Believe makes the movie from good to great. I mean movies today don't bring reality to kids and in this movie they did.

RIP Judith Barsi & Dom DeLuise@@@1 -Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.@@@0 -In my case I liked this movie because when I saw it I found more than I expected. I mean, this is one of the few animated movies that made me think about its themes even long after I finished. It talks about death, vengeance and hell in such a way that it gets to you like a punch in your face, even reaching to suffer with the dream sequence in the mid-point of the film. That's what makes this movie so good: the ability, unique in Don Bluth (director), to play with the people's feelings and make them love or hate a character in no time. That, and the fact that it has so many good characters like Charlie and Ann-Marie, that in the sad but happy ending you have to say "I have something in my eye" to hide the others that you cried. All I've said are just only some of the good points of this movie. As for the rest, you have to see them for yourself in a film extremely honest. Don Bluth, thank you.@@@1 -If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.

Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white "furry" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).

On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.@@@0 -All Dogs Go to Heaven is, in my opinion, the best animated film ever made. I'm not really a big fan of animated films, but there's something about this one that makes it better than any other animated film I've seen. The music is wonderful as is the performances of Burt Reynolds, Dom Deluise, and especially Ken Page as the King Gator. "Let's Make Music Together" is perhaps one of my favorite songs from any movie musical I've seen. This is definitely a must see for people of all ages.@@@1 -All these reviewers are spot on. I've seen many bad films over the years, believe me, and this beats the lot!

This is not just a "so bad it's good" exploiter waste of time, but a genuine, hilarious, movie atrocity.

CHECK OUT the white furry monster type thing!

WET YOURSELF LAUGHING at Thom Christopher's "spell-weaving" acting!

GAPE IN SHEER A**E-CLENCHING DISBELIEF! at the threadbare sets!

This is one of those "European co-productions". No wonder we have so many wars. I swear, some of the people taking part in 'Wizards of the Lost Kingdom' aren't actually aware they are appearing in a film!

FACT! I originally watched this movie on HTV Wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. I had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. It is. Worse even than Lee Majors in The Norseman, more laughable than all of John Derek's films, this is, truly, the Citizen Kane of Trash.@@@0 -"May Contain Spoilers*

"All Dogs Go to Heaven" is a great movie. I saw it in 1989 when I was two years old. I didn't understand it that well but as I saw it more and more times I started to love it. I love the songs in this movie. My favorite songs are "Let Me Be Surprised" and "Soon You'll Come Home". Those are beautiful songs. The only thing that bothers me about the movie is Charlie dieing. When I was little my sister couldn't even watch that part. Other than that this movie is wonderful.

My favorite part of the movie is when Annabelle and Charlie are flying around heaven. Heaven is beautiful in the movie and the "clocks" are very clever. I also love Itchy, in fact I have 3 dachshunds of my own. They are so cute.

Overall I love this movie and suggest everyone should see it. I give this movie 10/10 stars.@@@1 -What we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80's incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash- cinema completely speechless! "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy/Sword-and-Sorcery adventure that doesn't have an actual plot but does eagerly & shamelessly borrows elements from other films. Writer Ed Naha and Hector Olivera (who?) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters, but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. In order to make a fantasy-adventure you need: one super- evil villain (preferably with a black cape), one young hero in training, one lone warrior, one amiable type of furry pet, one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons, enslaved dwarfs, and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. The story is phenomenal and so original, with Simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician Shurka takes over the power and killed the king. Simon wants to go back and save the people, but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. Simon befriends lone warrior Kor (the usually cool dude Bo Svenson who clearly needed the pay check), who assists Simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals, dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. Admittedly it doesn't even sound too bad thus far, but that's merely just because I excluded all the deliciously inept little details. Simon has a best friend named Gulfax, for example. Gulfax is an albino version of Chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle-snout to yelp something incomprehensible. The obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the "plot" and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. Simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph, Kor settles an old score with the pig-faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there's the supposedly horrible 'suicide cave' where you can only sing your way out of. But the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence – not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema – involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. Simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors, hoping they will assist them in their battle, but the rotting corpses only take a few steps, complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. That's it! So much for the zombie sub plot! Best sequence ever! I could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs, but you get the idea. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a tremendously messed-up "so-bad-it's-good" film. Word of advice: do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. Invite friends, preferably the dope-headed types with a wicked sense of humor, and watch it in group. It will be a night to remember…@@@0 -Lots of reviews on this page mention that this movie is a little dark for kids. That depends on the kid. This isn't a movie for a 2-6 year old; it's more geared toward the 8 years and older crowd. I saw this movie when I was 10, I absolutely loved it. At the time most animated movies were a little too childish for my tastes. This movie deals with more serious issues, and therefore has a little more emotional impact. In this movie characters can DIE, and be sent to HELL! This gives a little more emotional weight to the scenes where characters are risking their lives. The good guys aren't always perfectly sweet and nice (like other cartoons). They have "real" motivations, like revenge, and greed, but also compassion and friendship; shows that things aren't always black and white.

Excellent Movie@@@1 -This movie is truly brilliant. It ducks through banality to crap at such speed you don't even see good sense and common decency to mankind go whizzing past. But it doesn't stop there! This movie hits the bottom of the barrel so hard it bounces back to the point of ludicrous comedy: behold as Kor the Beergutted Conan wannabe with the over-abundance of neck hair struts his stuff swinging his sword like there's no tomorrow (and the way he swung it, I really am amazed there *was* a tomorrow for him, or at least, for his beer gut). Don't miss this movie, it's a fantastic romp through idiocy, and sheer bloody mindedness! And once you have finished watching this one, dry the tears of joy (or tears of frustration at such an inept attempt at storytelling) from your eyes because some stupid f00l gave these people another $5 to make a sequel!@@@0 -All Dogs Go to Heaven plays on the canine criminal underworld. The film is a delight for children with a comical and dark-but-satisfying and happy-ending storyline with plenty of song and dance. It features outcast Charlie, a fellow canine criminal who is murdered but returns from the dead. He meets a homeless human girl who looks up to him, and through this relationship, he realizes the meaning of life and self-sacrifice. This is a cute animation loved very much through my eyes as a child. I would highly recommend this film to children. I'm unsure about how adults would react to it. (I tried to watch it a few years ago on VHS, but those recordings don't last long, do they?)@@@1 -From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, "A Sam Sherman Production" appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of "Swinging Stewardesses".

Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous!

But then again, "Naughty Stewardesses" was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's "Rat Pfink and Boo Boo"!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.)

This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with "Wrinkles" Livingstone. "Naughty Stewardesses" is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.@@@0 -I saw this movie when I was about 8-years-old and I liked it but it wasn't until I watched it again at the age of 13 that I really understood it for what it is; a cartoon about a criminal dog with a real heart of gold "adopts" a little girl in order to exploit her for her talents to talk to animals. The dog star,Charlie B. Barkin, is murdered by his formal business partner, Carface, (who is absolutely diabolical by the way). His soul then goes to where else but Heaven only to find a golden watch that is really his life's time, which Charlie, being the sneaky but lovable cad that he is steals and rewinds, sending him back to Earth. Once back on Earth, Charlie goes about seeking revenge on the evil Carface. This is how he comes upon young Anne-Marie, the lonely little orphan that can talk to animals whom Charlie plans to scam for her talents in order to get back at his enemy Carface. But scoundrel Charlie actually comes to care for young Anne-Marie and his plans unfoil as he must make up his mind to do what is right after Anne-Marie discovers what her "best friend" Charlie has really been using her to make money for a new and better dog casino. Now he must rescue her from the dreaded Carface. I still love this movie even at the age of 22. The idea and plot really are quite different and original from that of many other animated films. I especially like the idea that a dog plays the role of the villain for once. Carface was even better than he was in the All Dogs go to Heaven sequel. In that picture he appeared quite dubious to his role of villain.@@@1 -Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.

That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.

These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.

The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.

The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.

I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.@@@0 -When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()

The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.

The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with "I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill"...

So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :()@@@1 -I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.

Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.

Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.

Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses".@@@0 -UC 0079, the One Year War is almost at an end. A neutral colony of Side 6 has been targeted by Cyclops, a Zeon task force. Their target, a new Gundam being built exclusively for Newtypes (supposedly built for Amuro Ray from the original Gundam saga) inside. When little boy Al Izuruha, a fan of Zeon MS, encounters a Zaku after battle breaks out in the colony, he befriends newbie MS pilot Benard "Bernie" Wiseman. The two become good friends, Al is treated as an honorary member of the Cyclops team. Through the show, Bernie acts as a father figure to Al (whose real father is always working) and seems to be taken with Federation pilot Christina McKenzie, but eventually they must meet....in battle. Al soon learns that war is not child's play and Bernie must choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to complete his mission.

For only 6 episodes, Gundam 0080 is a well done show. The mobile suits are extremely well designed, and the animation may look dated but really shows emotion in the characters. If you liked 0083 then check this one out, or if you are new to the Gundam world, this is a good show to start with. If you look to a show for drama and character development, this is the one for you, it focuses more on that then mobile suit battle. I would rate it more of a drama than action.

Mobile Suit Gundam 0080, War in the Pocket.

Sometimes you have to lose to win.@@@1 -Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.

The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.

The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.

My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.

You have been warned.@@@0 -I can remember this movie from when i was a small child, i loved it then and I still do now. I managed to get it on DVD for my 18th Birthday and was over joyed because I had found it so difficult to find it previously and it had only be rented when i was younger. My favourite character is Charlie because he learns to be a good dog. The movie is filled with fun songs and music. The animation is brilliant and the character voices are perfect. This movie has always been a tearjerker for me but i think that if i hadn't seen the movie when i was small then i would not find it as brilliant and fascinating as I do although I still believe that I would still like it because I am Really into animated movies.@@@1 -Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?@@@0 -When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch.@@@1 -Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.

Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.@@@0 -An unforgettable masterpiece from the creator of The Secret of Nimh and The Land Before Time, this was a very touching bittersweet cartoon. I remember this very well from my childhood, it was funny and sad and very beautiful. Well it starts out a bit dark, a dog who escaped the pound, and gets killed by an old friend, ends up in Heaven, and comes back. But it becomes sweet when he befriends an orphaned girl who can talk to animals. Some scenes were a bit scary contrary to other cartoons, like the dream sequence of Charlie, but everything else was okay,and the songs were fair. A memorable role of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, I just love that guy, ahehehe. And Judith Barsi of Jaws The Revenge, may God rest her soul, poor girl, she didn't deserve to die, but she is in Heaven now, all good people go to Heaven. Overall this is a very good animated movie, a Don Bluth classic enough to put anime and Disney to shame. Recommended for the whole family. And know this, if you have the original video of this, you'll find after the movie, Dom DeLuise has a very important and special message, gotta love that guy, ahehehe.@@@1 -Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in "Avalon" and "Diner". He had some fine movies as well ("Rainman"), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. "Envy" is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick ("Dumb and Dumber"), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success.@@@0 -I remember watching this movie with my friends when we were 4 years old, but the weird thing is that I never watched it after that. The other day I was babysitting and my cousin never saw All Dogs Go To Heaven so we rented both movies and watched them together today and he really loved these movies. So many memories came back watching this movie once again and I have to admit I even cried a little. I'm 22 years old and the ending still gets to me. All Dogs Go To Heaven is one of the most touching animated films and I'm shocked honestly by this rating of 5.8, I thought this movie would bring back good memories for others as well. I admit the animation was a bit typical but the story is just so charming and fun.

Charlie is a gambling dog who gets killed by another gambling dog, Carface. But when Charlie wants revenge he comes back to Earth with a watch that can't stop ticking or that's the end of his life again. When he and his best friend, Itchy, look for Carface and spy on him they find out how Carface gets all his money, he has a little orphan girl who talks to animals and finds out who is going to win the races. Charlie takes the girl, Ann-Marie, and makes fake promises in order to get the money. But he ends up learning that maybe he should put Ann-Marie first before himself when Carface goes back to him with a vengeance.

All Dogs Go To Heaven is the perfect family film, it's not Disney, but this is an excellent family film to watch. Not to mention that it's just so cute and touching. I know it's ridicules and some people call me crazy, but this movie for me when I was a kid made me believe that dogs have souls. How could they not? They're just so loving, and I think I'm going to cry again. But anyways, I would just recommend this movie for anyone, it's a fun movie to watch.

7/10@@@1 -Jack Black's character, Tim Dingman the "Dreamer" in Envy, finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray "Vapoorize" that when sprayed on doggie dung, makes the poo disappear into thin air.

For a moment I was hoping that Vapoorize was a real product so that I could spray it on this "stinker" of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well.

Although Envy is not the worst movie that I have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to The Cat in the Hat), it does get the honor of a close second.

Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real "Stinkeroo"!!!!!

A 0.2 out of 10!!@@@0 -All Dogs Go To Heaven is a movie that I have always liked. When I was a kid, I used to watch this every other day. It is underrated if you look at its IMDb rating and the comments of many people in general. This isn't a bad movie like many say, it is a very good movie. This is good and your kids will probably like it. Even though it's rated G, some parents may find this to be a bit violent. It is actually a pretty dark story, where the dogs are similar to mobsters who are involved in gambling, extortion, and even cold blooded murder. The movie follows a dog named Charlie who had escaped from the pound, is killed by his old friend, goes to heaven, but ends up coming back to earth. Many younger kids watching this movie may feel as though they are watching a big kids movie.

There are some scenes that may scare little kids, but I'm sure they'll do fine. Every time I watch this movie, it reminds me of when I was a little kid. I'm sure everyone has a movie that reminds them of when they were younger, this is the movie that makes me feel that way. The performances from Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise are great, and this is the last movie that a little girl named Judith Barsi was in. Unfortunately, she was killed at a young age, which is a shame because she had so much potential and didn't deserve what happened. Now that I know her story, I can't watch this movie the same way anymore because her voice sounds so sad.

The animation in this movie is great, the voice work is great, and the story is good, but a little bit different from many other kids movies. This was popular at the time of its release, but was over shadowed by Disney's mega popular The Little Mermaid. This is a movie that isn't conceived as well by adults, but if you're a kid, or if you grew up with this movie as a kid, then I'm sure you will enjoy watching it.@@@1 -I do not envy Barry Levinson, Rachel Weisz, Ben Stiller or Jack Black for doing this film. It's, in one word, boring. Maybe the fact that is too predictable, the more-than-exploited Ben Stiller's loser role or the not-at-all funny scenes make this film just something to forget. Even Christopher Walken's appearance finishes in a pathetic way. I was very disappointed. I love Ben Stiller's acting. I loved it in most of his films, the last one I saw before this was Duplex with Drew Barrymore and was not that bad. About Jack Black... Well, apart from High Fidelity I've never seen him doing something good. What about School of Rock? Ooops, frightening.@@@0 -I've seen this movie when I was young, and I remembered it as one of the first films I have truly liked that was not an action movie or a comedy. So, in my later years I decided to watch it again and see if it was just nostalgia or was there really something in that movie. To my surprise, the movie held to my every expectations. It's a great movie. Emotional in the right amount, some jokes, nice songs (not great though, and that actually explains why I did not remember it was a musical) and all in all a great use to my time. I was surprised because the last movies from my childhood that I have revisited did not even pass my minimal demands of a decent movie and yet this movie, which I first saw in the second grade, made me cry today just like it made me cry then. Maybe that's because my dog died recently and maybe not, but the important thing is that it made me feel, and that's why filmmakers make films (that and the money, of course). Yes, there are continuity glitches. Yes, the script has holes, but it doesn't matter. The movie itself is fun and smart. So don't be fooled by cynical people who always look for the bad things in life, because nothing is perfect, and this movie gets a 10 not because it is perfect. It gets 10 simply because it made me feel.@@@1 -I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving.

2/10@@@0 -I loved this film when I was little. Today at 17 it is one of my all time favorite animated films. Beautiful animation and appealing characters are just two of the things to like about this film. Although many people might not enjoy some of the songs, most of them are well-done and go along with the story. It focuses on Charlie, a roguish handsome German Shepard who may seem unlikable to some at first... but eventually will win you over.

Not a kiddie film by any means. Often very dark and frightening at times. A treat for Don Bluth fans and animation buffs. But do keep a tissue in handy. ADGTH never fails to make me cry and will do the same for those who are movie sensitive. Arguably one of the greatest non-Disney animated films of all time. Along with Watership Down and My Neighbor Totoro.

BOTTOM LINE: A heavenly masterpiece.@@@1 -i saw this movie last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word, it is unfunny. UNfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can't believe that barry levinson didn't just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover, i can't believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it.

i gave it 3 out of 10* because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also, the horse "corky," by merely existing as a character in this movie, is actually quite ridiculous.@@@0 -All dogs go to Heaven is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I first saw it when I was like 3. Now I'm 12 and I rented it, it makes me think of things and it brings back so many memories, those were "the days". I love the music, I love when Charlie is arriving in Heaven, I love the song "Let me be surprised". I love how Charlie looks and his voice, Bert Reynolds could only play Charlie's voice this great. I love this movie, the 1st one is the best one because it's so original and great. It really does bring back memories that no one can describe, not even me. If only I could go back to those days. I love the characters. If this is the way the memories come back when I'm 12 imagine how I'll feel when I'm like 19, I hope I'll be able to watch this when I'm older. When I first seen this I never knew that I would really look back on it and feel this way , I hope it will be available to watch. I'm so happy that this movie was made and the amazing idea came to mind and heart. On a scale from 1-10 I'd give it a perfect 10. It's an amazing movie. It's so hard to explain the feeling, when I get older and if I have kids, I hope they can experience this feeling.@@@1 -Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.

Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.

Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.

The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.

I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux

I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals@@@0 -Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering.@@@1 -I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??@@@0 -What a fun movie St. Ives is. It reminds me of the type of film made during the 40's. Classic story, rounded off by characters and a plot that is neither over dramatic nor overtly complicated. In fact it isn't over anything. Robert Lewis Stevenson's story - here adapted for the screen - reads like Jane Austen for men. We do get a tale that has a romance at its heart, but there is plenty of fun too: battle scenes (sort of), prison escapes, mistaken identities, swordplay, and the funniest line I've heard in years: "Only in Scotland would guests be announced by name at a masked ball." There is much hilarity, hardship, and not a little heartbreak as St. Ives tries to fight and find his way back to a family and life he barely knew.

The cast is absolutely stellar with the too infrequently seen Jean Marc Barr absolutely perfect in the title role. Anna Friel is a refreshing delight as the resourceful Flora and Miranda Richardson nearly walks away with the movie as her wise and worldly, been there and seen-it-all Aunt Susan. Richard Grant provides comic relief of the highest order.

This is not going to be the greatest movie anyone has ever seen, but its charms are undeniable and the entire film fairly bristles with an energy that bursts with life.@@@1 -Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.@@@0 -If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the "good" and "bad" guys is decidedly less than distinct.

Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an "enemy" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.

I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment.@@@1 -This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.

Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.

Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.@@@0 -First of all, 'St. Ives' the film is only fairly loosely based on the Robert Louis Stevenson story of the same name, but for once, this is not a criticism. The original novel was a work-in-progress, unfinished at the author's death, and in freely adapting it and giving it an ending, the film-makers have brought to life some endearing characters who, although different from Stevenson's originals, would, I am sure, have charmed and amused him.

It is 1813: Capitaine Jacques de Kéroual de Saint-Yves is a Breton aristocrat, orphaned by the Revolution's guillotine, now serving as a hussar in Napoleon's army. We meet him going out for the evening, claiming that since a hussar who is not dead by 30 is "a blackguard", he, at 34, is now "on borrowed time"! Certainly, as he faces a string of challenges to duels, our dashing hero seems in danger, but a surreal prank on his Colonel provides him a way out of the duels and into the bed of a beautiful courtesan/singer. Unfortunately, it also results in losing his commission... Further misadventures result in him being taken prisoner by the British, and sent to a POW camp in a Scottish castle.

While carving toys and boxes, Jacques catches the attention of Flora, the young niece of Miss Susan Gilchrist, a well-travelled woman of the world who lives at Swanston Cottage. They fall in love, and most of the story concerns Flora helping Jacques to escape and to find his emigré grandfather, the old Comte. Of course, there is a problem. Jacques' older brother, Alain, a dissolute alcoholic, is - perhaps understandably - far from pleased when Grandfather disinherits him in front of the whole household, the very instant that Jacques has appeared... Cue treachery! There is also an entertaining subplot of the romance between the awkward, naïf but good-hearted Major Farquhar Chevening and Aunt Susan, who has travelled through most of the Ottoman Empire and been a prisoner of the Turks.

Even allowing for a natural prejudice in favour of any film in which the heroines share my surname, 'St. Ives' is magic! It combines splendidly swashbuckling swordfights, a balloon-flight, comedy and romantic adventure. I would recommend it to anyone who loves 'the kind of film they don't make anymore' - Fairbanks, Colman, Flynn, & co. The acting is splendid. Anna Friel makes Flora a spirited and appealing heroine, and Jean-Marc Barr is delightful as Jacques, a genuinely lovable hero. Miranda Richardson and Richard E. Grant are already great favourites of mine, and have great fun as Susan and Farquhar, whose relationship runs as a comic counterpoint to that of the leads. As the rakish, scheming, but ultimately tragic Alain, Jason Isaacs shows, as he did more recently in 'The Patriot', that he has the classic swashbuckling style, besides the dashing good looks! Please, please will someone cast him as a *hero* in the genre?!!!

My main quibbles with the film concern settings and costumes. In the book, the castle in which Jacques is a prisoner is clearly Edinburgh, but the film, shot in Ireland, Germany and France has 'Highlandised' the setting, making the retention of place names such as Swanston, Inveresk and Queensferry decidedly incongruous. The costumes too are a real hotch-potch, from 1780s through to the period in which it is set. While this would not be implausible with more down-market characters "making do", it seems odd for well-to-do ladies such as the heroines to be wearing 1780s gowns in 1813. Clearly, the costuming decision was æsthetic: these earlier styles are visually far more appealing and elegant than Regency fashions, and they work in the idealised world of the film. As a whole, 'St. Ives' is 90 minutes of pure delight.@@@1 -this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.

i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.

if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.@@@0 -this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play "Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit@@@1 -I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.

Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.

So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia).@@@0 -I saw two movies over the weekend, One was "kaal" and the other "Waqt". Both movies are made in "Bollywood" but they are worlds apart. The fundamental difference is the Story and the Director. Vipul Shaw made his indelible mark with "Ankhen", one of the best Comedy Hindi movies. His Casting of the Charecteres is perfect. The story apparently taken from a Gujerati Play is awesome,the treatment is superb with some exceptions. In Bollywood when a movie is put together the first thing a Bollywood Director is prone to do is sign up a music director and this guy (mediocre Malik in this instance)is obligated to drum up six songs to fulfill his contract. So even a good Director like Vipul Shah has to use them to appease the Finacier and the Grandma's who just cant get enough of these numbers. No Music director can churn out good songs relentlessly as clearly evident in this movie. None of the songs have any melody and they are clearly intrusive to the narration of the story except the background music and the westernized version of the Bharat-Natyam. The duelling and role playing the Father and Son is good acting by Bachachan and Akshay Kumar. His stunt scenes are clearly outstanding. A good director surrounds himself with good actors and he is willing to wait till a good story comes along as in this super movie. Then we have a cheap classless tasteless Producer like Sharukh Khan who will stoop low as to shamelessly plug and promote a trash like "Kaal" to enrich himself at the cost of the betterment of Art, and they surround themselves with borderline talent, and they recoup the investment before the word gets around. These are the Bollywood locusts who prey on the unsuspected audience to garner "Film Farce" awards given by Bollywood Chamcha's and most of them are in the Media.@@@1 -It seems that the people behind Envy realised that recent comedies - especially ones involving Ben Stiller and to a lesser degree Jack Black - have been situation spoofs, which have steadily declined in originality and generally laughs. I found the sheer absurdity of Zoolander utterly hilarious when it was released, Starsky and Hutch was also enjoyable, and then Dodgeball kept the laughs going for a lot of people, although personally i was a bit tired of the over-the-top characters - especially when the scenario wasn't quite so funny (perhaps the comedy of a Dodgeball tournament doesn't quite translate to Australia, where it's rarely played). So in an attempt to do something a little more original, Envy moves away from an absurd scenario and instead revolves around the absurd creation of Jack Black's character (i won't spoil what it is for those who intend to see the movie). The problem is that the movie seems to drag, i'm not a big enough movie buff to be able to think of examples, but it seems like this set up has been done a thousand times before - and very rarely successfully. So instead of a nice, crisp, enjoyable and fresh comedy, you get a film that seems to just go through the motions. Sure the motions can be quite amusing, and they're centred on an idea that is quirky enough to provide a few laughs - especially with Jack Black playing the excited and amusing, though a bit 2D, creator. Ben Stiller on the other hand seems a bit lost, he's asked to play a fuller role than the ridiculous characters of his Zoolander breed of movies, but he struggles as a family man, whether his fault or the scripts, there isn't enough depth to the character and the result is a movie of Ben Stiller doing those typical mannerisms and generally becoming tedious. The performance doesn't leave an imprint on the viewer (he's just Ben Stiller, Jack Black manages to actually portray a character - though not a challenging one). The last annoying element of the movie is Christopher Walken's role as 'The J Man', which is about as typical and two dimensional as characters come, and naturally he becomes monotonous and frustrating very quickly.

It's really not as unbearable as some people would have you think, it's watchable, especially if you're in the right mood (feeling silly would be a good prerequisite for seeing this film). Hire it on a movie night with friends and watch it after you've watched a scary film and feel like something light - hopefully you'll also be somewhat tipsy by then too. In that scenario i can imagine it would be quite enjoyable, but generally it provides too few laughs to carry itself and most of the time just drags along.@@@0 -The basic storyline here is, Aditiya (Kumar) is the spoilt son of a millionaire, Ishwar (Bachan) who owns a toy industry, in Ishwar's eyes his son Aditya can do nothing wrong, Aditya's mother Sumitra (Shefali Shah) warns Ishwar to bring his son to the responsible path before it is too late, for Ishwar is a patient of lung cancer and has only 9 months to live, when his son elopes and marries Mitali (Chopra), Ishwar readily forgives Aditya, but when the happy couple Aditya and Mitali come back from a honeymoon, Mitali is pregnant, and this forces Ishwar to kick Aditya out of the house to make him more responsible, Aditya doesn't know his father is suffering from lung cancer, and he also doesn't know that his father has kicked him out of the hose to make him more responsible, Ishwar cannot bring himself to tall Aditya that he is about to die, with a hungry and pregnant wife. it is a race against time so Aditya does all he can to prove himself to his father, and the climax comes when Aditya gets his big break in the movie industry and his father tells him that he is about to die.

This movie is absolutely brilliant, this is the breakthrough in Indian cinema that was needed for the Bollywood industry, Shah's directing is almost flawless, but which movie doesn't have flaws? The best part if this movie is the father son relationship which is a tearjerker. the song interludes is just placed at the right time, the scenery is good, the only part where this movie fails is where the jokes between Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav the jokes are too long and after a bit they are annoying, but overall this is a brilliant movie, i advise anybody Reading this review to go and watch it regardless of other reviews. 9/10@@@1 -Please, someone stop Ben Stiller from acting in ANY movie. Write the studios, hell, write your local congressman even. I've gotten more laughs going to a funeral then I have watching ANY Stiller flick. Jack Black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap, and Christopher Walken, perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation, simply looks embarrassed to be there. Stiller is his unfunny self,but now even with someone to bail him out, proves that he is way overrated as a comic. It's no wonder why this movie tanked badly, and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. I warn you, and you must warn your friends, Do not watch this flick, it is just awful, worst then Gothika (personally, i'd never thought i'd say that), worst the Plan 9, Worst the Ishtar, worst then The Golden Child. Please Hollywood, quit allowing Ben Stiller in your movies, he's not funny, he's a god awful actor, and he's bringing others down with him. The following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed, so while the board says one, I'll give it a Zero.@@@0 -This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good.@@@1 -I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.

Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.@@@0 -What a outstanding movie is this i have not words to describe. i don't know how come the rating of the movie is 7.3 it should be 9.3 but anyways no one else can make this movie and the acting by Akshay is just outstanding the second half of the movie makes u cry and the movie has a really good unexpected ending which makes the movie perfect. you should watch this movie once, i think twice well it's up to u. Anyways i love this movie and it's not just sad and funny but it also gives u a really good meanings and what u should be doing so i think this is one of the best movie in the bollywood history. but i know the people has deferent chooses so ya. the only thing i don't like about this movie is the music well the background music is good but the songs are not good enough i think the music would be better if A R Rahman would be the music director but anyways we can't do anything about that so ya.@@@1 -Start with the script. I have seen cartoons with more depth than "Envy". Anytime characters keep repeating what you have already seen, and was not funny the first time, a movie is in deep trouble, which "Envy" certainly is. A movie that relies on one joke had better have somewhere to go with it. Here we have a film that goes absolutely nowhere. Christopher Walken especially would like to forget this bomb, because his character is so weak. Ben Stiller has been in some pretty good black comedies, "Flirting With Disaster", and "Duplex", immediately come to mind. Be certain that "Envy" is not a black comedy. There are no double meanings, just total nonsense. "Envy" deserves it's low rating, because like it's subject matter, it stinks. - MERK@@@0 -Time For A Hit!

Waqt Dir- Vipul Amrutlal Shah Cast- Amitabh Bachchan, Akshay Kumar, Priyanka Chopra, Shefali Shah, Rajpal Yadav and Boman Irani. Written by- Aatish Kapadia Rating- ***

Eureka! We've got it! Yes, ladies and gentlemen…in Vipul Shah's 'Waqt', we have probably found this year's first bona fide hit. Replete with all the necessary ingredients of a commercial Bollywood fare, 'Waqt' has all that it takes for a movie to click with the Indian audiences. It's the kinda film that makes a distributor feel happy and contemplate his next phoren visit! In this 'saga of Indian emotions' then, we have a happy family(isn't it always?) of three. Ishwar(Amitabh Bachchan), the postman-turned-millionaire(don't ask how!...there's something about selling toys while delivering letters and all that…seriously- who gives a damn!), married to Sumi(Shefali Shah) is a doting father to Aditya(Akshay Kumar). Ishwar has to make a serious decision about his son's careless attitude towards the responsibilities of life. His love for Aditya though, results in his procrastination of the grave issue. However, when faced with a situation that will test his race against time, Ishwar has no alternative but to throw Aditya out of the house- hoping that the new predicament might make him more conscientious of his own life. But this presumed solution becomes a problem in itself, as the rift between the loving father-son increases and the fences continue to grow.

You don't have to be a rocket-scientist to realize that such a story provides ample opportunities to infuse comedy and drama alike. So, pre-interval you have the initially funny, later annoying comedy track of Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav; and post-interval there are the go for your kerchief moments between Aby and Akki! Writer Aatish Kapadia(he also penned the original Gujarati play 'Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu' on which the film is based) does a good job of keeping the narrative fluid. The dialogues tend to get inconsistent at times. It doesn't help that songs appear like acne on a teenage face and mar the proceedings. Clearly, a couple of numbers could've been done away with. On the directing front, Vipul shows that he possesses a natural flair for story-telling. 'Waqt', as well as his earlier debut effort 'Aankhen', manage to keep you interested till the last reel. On a personal note- the seesaw of emotions was a tad jerky for me. But gauging from the audience reactions, it was working to the hilt.

Finally, 'Waqt' is all about its performances which amount to one whole point in the overall rating! Amitabh Bachchan is dependable as always. His energy is visible and so is his age! Shefali pitches in a finely nuanced performance and matches the superstar at every step. Boman and Rajpal bring the house down with their histrionics. Priyanka has little to do than fulfill the perfunctory role of a heroine. When it all boils down though, 'Waqt' is Akshay's vehicle. I have always maintained that Akki is as good as the role suits him. Put him in a 'Mujhse Shaadi Karogi' and he's fantastic, but in a 'Bewafaa' he is woefully bad. Here, Akki is probably at his best. Whether it is his comic timing or his emotional renderings, he is near-perfect. There's also an action scene for his fans! Ironically, his previous best endeavour was in 'Aankhen'- with the same director and Big B at his side!

'Waqt' is by no means a memorable movie. It's not one that will feature in the better films of our industry. But it is one for the masses. And at a time when the industry is waiting desperately for a universal hit, 'Waqt' might just do the trick!

- Abhishek Bandekar

Trivia- This is Akshay Kumar's second consecutive film after 'Bewafaa', in which he performs on stage during the climax!

Rating- ***

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

22nd April, 2005@@@1 -How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?

Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.

The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.

Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.@@@0 -Simply great movie no doubt about it. Great story and superb performances, be it Amitabh, Akshay, Shefali, Priyanka, Boman or Rajpal. Hindi film industry is going shameless with Mallika and Co, this movie is totally vulgarity free and therefore bound to fail in vulgarity addicted our Indian society. But the message and concept this movie carries are absolutely superb. Anu Malik(boring copy-cat) could have been avoided and Ismail Darbar or Himmesh Reshmmiya could have been used as musician. I think Vipul Shah should have given little bit Gujarati touch particularly in music also. Anu Malik is worst musician around and he thinks himself popstar but this is not the movie where is presence was required-He looks only good with Govinda style songs. I felt some nice serious music with couple of good Ghazals or sad songs could have made this movie more memorable.@@@1 -I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.

I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.

The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.@@@0 -WAQT is a perfect example of a chicken soup not exactly for your soul. The broth unfortunately has lost its actual taste thanks to all the excess dilution and garnishing that went into its making.

What's surprising and disappointing about WAQT is that it comes from a director who stayed away from the usual clichés of Hindi cinema in his first venture but who in his second outing gives in for all the stereotype film formulas. While Vipul Shah had the conviction to show something as implausible as blind men robbing a bank in AANKHEN, he just fails to induce life in the entire packaging of WAQT that is based on something as conceivable as a father-son relationship. Adopted from a Gujarati play Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu, WAQT does have a sensible storyline with a social message to back up. A mature look on the father-son relationship, a father's unconditional love towards his son and a son's responsibility towards his family. Ishwar Chand Sharawat (Amitabh Bachchan) who has established his entire empire on his own from the scratch leads an affluent life with his wife Sumitra (Shefali Shah). Their only son Aditya (Akshay Kumar) never had the need to strive for anything since he got everything tailor-made and spoon-fed in life. Ishwar's pampering has only spoil him all the more.

Aditya dreams to turning into a superstar but does nothing to make his dreams come true. In the meanwhile he marries his ladylove Mitali (Priyanka Chopra). Ishwar hopes that marriage will make Aditya a more responsible man but he is disappointed. Aditya is still at his blithe best leading a carefree life.

The endurance limit finally collapses when Ishwar expels Aditya from his house. The sudden change in the attitude of his affectionate father towards him and his now expecting wife baffles Aditya. He has no option left but to strive for the livelihood of his wife and his unborn kid. He starts turning into an independent man but the rift in the relationship between him and his father grows.

The story is simplistic while the uncomplicated screenplay has a very elementary approach. One can easily identify and relate with the credible characters of both the father and the son. If you are not one of the two, you at least might have come across individuals like them somewhere in real life.

Add to it director Vipul Shah's easy handling of the screenplay. With a family affair like this, any other director in his place would have added in tons of melodrama in the proceedings as per the cinematic laws of Bollywood family dramas, turning the film into a compulsive tearjerker. However Shah excels in the effortless handling of emotions for most part of the film.

Clear-cut example of his unpretentious direction is palpable in the pre-interval scene where the father expels the son from his house in a rather frivolous manner. The purpose of the scene is achieved without blotting a brunt on the audiences' brains. Ditto for the scene in the second half wherein the now separated father son have a flippant conversation. That's what differentiates WAQT from a KABHI KUSHI GHUM or an EK RISHTAA and in fact places it one level high in terms of treatment.

But after gaining all the distinction points, one may wonder where does WAQT still fail in? The problem lies in the fact that while WAQT distinguishes itself from the others in it's league in terms of treatment, it gives in to the glitches in the terms of packaging. What with the director forcing in song-n-dance every now and then in the first half. There's a Johar kinda shaadi song, a Chopra kinda Holi song, a father son disco dandia song, a dream song and a dream come true song inducing sufficient yawns in the viewer. Picture this... the father has just ousted the son from his house and the son is dreaming of a song in Moroccan mountains with his wife. Out of place! Out of reason! and the audience Out of seat.

The film just drags in the first half and the actual story starts only in the second half. The director has wasted too much WAQT on unnecessary elements. The much talked about dog chase sequence isn't bad but is not redeeming either. However Akshay Kumar's taandav dance is simply ridiculous. Imagine he qualifies for the star hunt in the movie with this (unintentionally) hilarious histrionic. Add to it the climax set at the finals of the star-hunt where the son bursts out with emotions. That's so archetypal! Also the editing pattern could have been reversed to conceal the father's reason for the change in attitude towards his son.

Anu Malik's music is fine though unnecessary in the proceedings. Santosh Thundiiayil's camera-work is competent enough though not much demanding. Aatish Kapadia has come up with some good dialogs for dramatic moments.

Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav make up or the light moments in the film very efficiently. While Rajpal Yadav has been going overboard with his comic histrionics in many films off lately, this time he underplays his character and is completely restrained. His deadpan expressions are perfectly complimented with Boman's over-the-top histrionics.

Shefali Shah is convincing in the mother's role. Not to be taken as a censure but she is flawless in both playing and 'looking' her character. Priyanka is gorgeous and performs her part well.

Of course the major applause deserves are Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. Akshay is especially expressive in the scene where his doting father intentionally berates him to make him aware of his responsibilities. Though Bachchan goes a bit dramatic in a couple of scenes, his brilliance strikes throughout the film.

To sum up, WAQT is like a soup whose ingredients are both tasty and nutritional but the final recipe somehow isn't as much appetizing.@@@1 -"Envy" is bad for a number of reasons. Yes, there are unlikeable characters. That's not the problem. It is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. "The War of the Roses" featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate, whereas in "Envy" the introduction is thin, the characters are never believable, and the plot only makes things worse.

Ben Stiller is simply repulsive in his role and I'm a fan of his work most of the time. Stiller campaigned to have this released straight-to-video and now I can see why. The movie proposes that he's "best friends" with Jack Black, but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate Stiller hates Black. I thought this would develop into some sort of one-sided relationship (a la "The Cable Guy") but it never does, instead Stiller insists he's his "best friend" and I felt confused as he seemed to treat Black like, well, "poo." The movie's plot is ridiculous but it doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. Unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. Walken gives a good performance but Black is off-key and annoying (and I usually find him very funny). No, it's not a horrible film but I still can't believe Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Sleepers") is responsible for this - it's not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. I wish Va-Poo-Rize did exist - so we could make this film disappear forever....@@@0 -An excellent movie about two cops loving the same woman. One of the cop (Périer) killed her, but all the evidences seems to incriminate the other (Montand). The unlucky Montand doesnt know who is the other lover that could have killed her, and Périer doesnt know either that Montand had an affair with the girl. Montand must absolutely find the killer...and what a great ending! Highly recommended.@@@1 -I couldn't wait to put this movie in my DVD player when I rented it. Then after I started it, I couldn't wait to get it OUT of my DVD player. Actually I watched all of the movie. My wife and I kept waiting and waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny ever does. The box read like the it would be really funny. The premise of the movie sound good. Ben Stiller is funny. Jack Black is funny. How could this movie miss? Well....it does miss! This is the unfunniest "comedy" I have ever watched. Nobody I have talked with thought it was even slightly funny. It is just a really lame movie. Trust me. Avoide it....AVOIDE IT!!@@@0 -Exquisite comedy starring Marian Davies (with the affable William Haines). Young Peggy arrives in Hollywood seeking stardom. Cameo performances showcase "all the stars in MGM's heaven" in the famous commissary scene, plus lots of vintage film making detail for the scholar. Pic also captures for posterity Davies' famous, wickedly sarcastic impersonations of the top stars of the day (her Swanson is a beaut!).

"Peggy," even catches herself as she encounters the famous star Marian Davies at tennis, turns up her nose and comments, "Ohh, I don't like her!"

My print was perfect. Story, direction, acting an authentic charm and a must for all silent afficinados.@@@1 -This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.

The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.

However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).

Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.@@@0 -Great screenplay and some of the best actors the world has ever produced. Montand gives the concept of the 'lone wolf' police detective a whole new dimension of intensity and, most importantly, credibility.

When a typical Hollywood cop-heroe loses family, friends and pets to murder he is usually given his minute of grief. But when the sixty seconds are over, he pulls himself together, packs his gun and goes gleefully shooting up his enemies one by one.

Montand's Marc Ferrot, however, is really devastated - by his girlfriends murder, of course, but also by finding out that she had another lover.In his confusion and wrath he does not seek revenge but needs to keep going to find the real perpetrator of a crime where his fingerprints are all over the scene. Thus all his actions become unescapably logical. This is the main reason why this movie glues us to our seats but definetely not the only one.@@@1 -This has to be the most brutally unfunny "comedy" I've ever seen in my life. Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Christopher Walken as a crazed homeless man CAN'T make me laugh? Something's got to be wrong with this picture. This is the only movie I've ever felt like walking out of. I used free passes, and still felt like I wanted my money back. I can wholeheartedly say that the only movie I've ever seen worse than this one was HOUSE OF THE DEAD. The. ONLY. worse. movie. I laughed very slightly at the merry-go-round scene, and that's it. Spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh, right? I don't know, I guess the filmmakers thought that "flan" was a funny word, or something. And the other running joke really is beating a dead horse--literally.@@@0 -Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: "la Menace" (1977) and "Série Noire" (1979) among others. "Police Python 357" is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.

The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Léopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (François Périer). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...

One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Ménard (Mathieu Carrière) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.

The backdrop of this thriller, Orléans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm.@@@1 -This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.

The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.

The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.

The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though.

If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.@@@0 -Series 2 has got off to a great start! I don't think you need to have watched series 1 to get a grasp of whats happening but like any series its nice to feel some sense of the characters and to care about what happens to them. And this show makes you think like that! These 4 30-something women seem to lead glamorous and exciting lives yet the premise is believable and realistic. So the twists and turns that arrive thanks to their love and sex lives are exciting to watch but you also know that these are problems that happen to real women too. Its about the decisions we make as women and how sometimes we are led down certain paths in our lives rather than consciously making those choices!@@@1 -This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!

First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in "zero")

I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.

Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you!@@@0 -This drama is unlike Sex and the City, where the women have a few drinks and share their sexual encounters with each other. Its much more personal and people can relate to it. Its much more engaging and emotional on a new level than other dramas focusing on women and their lives like "Sex and the City, Lipstick Jungle...."

Dr. Katie Roden, is a psychologist with a dark secret, she seems much more depressed and guilt ridden than the rest of her 3 friends. She is dealing with the death of her former lover who was her patient while tackling his son's advances on her. Her sombre clothes and empty and cold house convey her inside emotions very well.

Trudi Malloy, a widow is battling issues with "letting go" of her dead husband from 9/11. And when a handsome stranger, Richard shows an interest in her she is suddenly forced to do a reality check by her friends who suggest that she gets back into dating business. The ridiculous and embarrassing courting scenes between Richard and Trudi are totally funny! It is interesting to note that Richard asks her out the day she gets a millions from the 9/11 board for her husband's death..lets see what his intentions are

Siobhan Dillon, a lawyer is fed up of her husband's love making tactics which only involve "baby making" (as they are having trouble conceiving) and she quickly falls for her colleague who offer his "services" a little too willingly to her and she does not hesitate for long!It will interesting to see whether she will continue her affair or patch up with her husband (played by Raza Jeffrey) Jessica, a real estate business woman is single and is straight, until she organizes a lesbian wedding and has an affair with one of them. Her character is shown as a bold and provocative woman who before her lesbian encounter is having sex with a "married man", her colleague. Lets see where her character venture to....

The beauty of this drama is that we are shown 4 totally different women with different scenarios, whose ambitions and inhibitions are shown. Its also a good thing that the drama reveals the fact that sometimes friends lie to each other to be "safe"!@@@1 -Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.

I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.

I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.

To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."@@@0 -I wasn't quite sure if this was just going to be another one of those idiotic nighttime soap operas that seem to clutter prime time but, as it turns out, this is a pretty good show (no small thanks to talented casting). Four female friends with diverse backgrounds get together and share the weekly goings-on of their love-lives. The hour long program follows each of them separately through their often screwed up quests to find love and it does it without being boring or trite. Sharon Small's "Trudi" is the homemaker one (allegedly widowed after September 11th) who gets a little preachy and annoying with her friends (who tend to be a little looser and more creative in their endeavors). It's great to see Small back on t.v., as she was great in the "Inspector Lynley Mysteries". The chick can act. Orla Brady's character (Siobhan, a lawyer) is perhaps the most damaged but still very sympathetic of the women, as she wrestles with her kind but self-absorbed husband Hari (Jaffrey, formerly of "Spooks") in his driven desire to have a child with her, regardless of her needs. The final two members of the cast are the effervescent Jess (Shellie Conn), an events planner who's a wild child who sleeps with anyone and everyone, gender not specific, and Katie, (Sarah Parrish) a somber doctor who's affair with a patient AND his son have sent her career and love life spiraling out of control. That being said, I'm hooked now and hope that the BBC continues cranking this series out because it's good, it's different and it's got a great cast.@@@1 -Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying "It's so bad that it's good?" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something.@@@0 -Why this is called "Mistresses" is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses… Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries "Bouquet of Barbed Wire", where every character and their dads wielded the machete.

Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends "I have to tell my husband". No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!

Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.

Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame "You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!", which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.

Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said "That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty". More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does "sexy" from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.

So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.

Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7.@@@1 -Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.

Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.

Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.

Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.@@@0 -When I first read the plot of this drama i assumed it was going to be like Sex and the City, however this drama is nothing like it. The stories the characters seem more real and you empathise with the situations more. The concept of the drama is similar, four 30 something women guide us through there friendships and relationships with problems and strife along the way. Katie the GP is a dark and brooding character who you find difficult to relate too and is best friends with Trudi a widow. Trudi's character is heart warming as you can relate to difficulties she is having along with the fact she is the only mother of the four. Jessica is the party girl very single minded and knows what she wants and how to get it. She is a likable character and is closest to Siobhan the newly wed who whilst loving her husband completely can't help her eyes wandering to her work colleague. Over all the drama is surprisingly addictive and if the BBC continue to produce the series it could do well. It is unlike other female cast dramas such as Sex and the city, or Desperate Housewives. This if played right could be the next Cold feet. Plus the male cast are not bad on the eyes too.@@@1 -Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.

Score: 2/10@@@0 -Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living "under a rock" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life !@@@1 -SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an "extreme" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create "shock-value". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of "shock" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.

SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates "hoo-uhs" (that's "whores" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...

The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10@@@0 -Several years ago the Navy kept a studied distance away from the making of "Men of Honor," a film based on the experiences of the service's first black master chief diver's struggle to overcome virulent racism. Ever eager to support films showing our Navy's best side the U.S.S. Nimitz and two helicopter assault carriers, with supporting shore installations, were provided to complement this engrossing tale of a young sailor's battle with uncontrollable rage. Some of the movie was shot aboard the U.S.S. Belleau Wood.

Antwone Fisher wrote the script for Denzel Washington's director's debut in which he stars as a Navy psychiatrist treating Fisher, played effectively and deeply by Derek Luke.

Fisher is an obviously bright enlisted man assigned to the U.S.S. Belleau Wood (LHA-3), a front line helicopter assault platform. Fisher can't seem to avoid launching his own assaults at minimal provocation from his fellow enlisted men. Sent to the M.D. as part of a possible pre-separation proceeding, Fisher slowly opens up to the black psychiatrist, revealing an awful childhood of great neglect and shuddering brutality.

The story develops as Fisher cautiously but increasingly trusts his doctor and gets the courage to pursue a love interest, an enlisted sailor named Cheryl, played by a stunningly beautiful Joy Bryant.

Fisher reluctantly engages with the doctor by asking long simmering questions but soon realizes he must seek the answers, however painful, in order to grow and move away from conflict-seeking destructive behavior.

While all the main characters are black, this story transcends race while unflinchingly showing the evil of exuberant religiosity and concomitant hypocrisy in foster family settings. Viola Davis, a versatile actress seen in a number of recent films, is a picture of sullen immorality but is nothing compared to foster mom, Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson), who in short but searing scenes would earn - if it existed - the Oscar for gut-churning brutality.

Films about patient-therapist interaction follow a certain predictability (all that transference and counter-transference stuff) but the earnestness of Fisher and his doctor/mentor is realistically gripping. It's a good story, well told. Period.

While set in the Navy, "Antwone Fisher" is not in any real sense a service story as was "Men of Honor," an excellent movie that dealt with crushing racism directed against a real person. Nor is it truly a film about blacks. It's about surviving terrible childhood experiences and, as Fisher says, being able to proclaim in adulthood that the victim is still "standing tall." The persecutors shrink in size and significance as a brave and strong young man claims his right to a decent life with the aid of a caring doctor.

My only quibble is that Washington is a lieutenant commander but is addressed as commander. With all the Navy support people listed in the end credits, someone should have told Director Washington that his character, like all naval officers below the rank of commander, is addressed as "Mister." Not a big criticism, is it? :)

I don't know why this film is playing in so few theaters. It deserves wide distribution. Derek Luke may well get an Oscar nomination.

8/10.

@@@1 -There are bad movies, then there are the movies that are SO bad, that they become almost art. This is one of those films. My partner and I are still both kind of shell shocked, you know, staring off into space and drooling! You can tell that the people involved (I hope they changed their names to protect themselves) were having a blast, and they definitely weren't shy. I give this one a three out of ten just because of the gratuitous smut and REALLY bad gore effects. I laughed out loud during most of the movie, so I guess you could say that it showed me a good time. Beware viewer, the above words in no way construe that this is a good film, because it is not. All I can say in my defense, is that it was impossible to pass up a movie with such a GREAT title!@@@0 -"Antwone Fisher" tells of a young black U.S. Navy enlisted man and product of childhood abuse and neglect (Luke) whose hostility toward others gets him a stint with the base shrink (Washington) leading to introspection, self appraisal, and a return to his roots. Pat, sanitized, and sentimental, "Antwone Fisher" is a solid feel-good flick about the reconciliation of past regrets and closure. Good old Hollywood style entertainment family values entertainment with just a hint of corn. (B)@@@1 -I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video.

There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.@@@0 -There are no people like "Show People" Marion Davies (as Peggy Pepper) and William Haines (as Billy Boone). My introduction to Ms. Davies was a "clip" from this film; the delightfully spoofy one in which she lowers a scarf to reveal different emotions. My introduction to Mr. Haines was in viewing this film, presently; though, it's possible I've seen him in a less memorable role. Haines makes an incredible impression, when he joins Davies for a commissary meal - tossing his hat into the ring with some wonderful bits at the dining table. Indeed, Haines and Davies deliver great comic performances.

The story starts off with Dell Henderson (Colonel Pepper) driving daughter Davies into Hollywood, certain she will become Tinseltown's newest sensation. Indeed, Davies and the already arrived Haines become comedy stars. But, Davies yearns to become a true drama queen. Davies leaves Haines, and partners up with the dashingly dramatic Paul Ralli. But, audiences prefer Davies in more comic roles; perhaps director King Vidor is offering up a case for art imitating life?

Full of great Hollywood location footage, both on the set, and off. Full of great "cameos"; at a studio lunch, at the stars' table, Davies sits between Douglas Fairbanks and William S. Hart. The best "bit" player, however, is Charlie Chaplin, who has enough nerve to ask Davies for her autograph! While the cameos are fun, they, and the episodic sequences, do help "Show People" become less of an important film, and more of an important historical document.

******** Show People (11/11/28) King Vidor ~ Marion Davies, William Haines, Dell Henderson@@@1 -Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do.

But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town?

Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.

Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.@@@0 -This is my favorite movie EVER. I have watched it at least 10 times and I cry every time. My family begs me not to watch it so I wont have a crying fit. I think I love that it is a true story written by Antwone himself just as much as I love the movie. The acting is top notch, and the actors were perfect for their role. Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors. But this is my favorite movie he has done so far. I took care of a little boy who was also born in jail. He was the most precious little boy I had ever met. He has now been adopted by a wonderful family who fought for him for almost two years. I saw this movie while the fight was still going on and his future was unsure and I am so happy he is safe and loved. And I am so happy Antwone's happy and found his family.

I would love to know more about him and how it has been since meeting his family. I just cant say enough good things about it!!@@@1 -Director Ron Atkins is certifiably insane. This ultra-low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one Harry Russo (John Giancaspro, who also co-wrote), a nut-job who receives a Rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. He starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs, rape and kill, not always in that order. What starts off as being a balls-to-the-wall exploitation film, well stays like that, but it gets VERY repetitive VERY fast. I'm leaning more toward the certifiably insane. It IS hard to forget once seen though. Kinda like if Tom Green ever did a horror film.

My Grade:F

Eye Candy: Laurie Farwell gets fully nude; Jasmin Putnam shows tits and bush

ANTI-eye candy: seeing John completely naked repeatedly@@@0 -Saw this film in August at the 27th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention in Milwaukee, WI, it's first public screening. THE FILM IS GREAT!!! Derek Luke is wonderful as Antwone Fisher. This young actor has a very bright future. The real Antwone Fisher did a great job writing the film and Denzel's direction is right on the money. See it opening weekend. You won't be disappointed.@@@1 -A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.@@@0 -Knowing what to expect (on the whole) from a Denzel Washington performance - quality, integrity, gravitas, wry humour - will prepare you for what to expect from his directorial debut. Much like Robert De Niro's A Bronx Tale, Antwone Fisher delivers the moving drama of the life of a young man and the effects of key figures in his life. Much as in A Bronx Tale De Niro played one of these key figures to the lead character (himself a character was born to play but was too old too) Washington takes a similar role in this as the fatherly councellor to the titular character - a character that seems like he should be played by a Washington from 20 years ago. Be thankful Washington is too old to play Antwone because if he had we would firstly be deprived of the wonderfully measured and intelligently nuanced performance he gives as the Navy councellor. However more importantly we wouldn't get to see the superb, we can only hope star making, turn from Derek Luke in the title role. Inevitably the character comes across as moulded in Washington's shape, however you get the impression this is not just because Washington directed it, not that Luke was trying to copy him, but that Luke is as genuinely powerful and thought provoking an actor as Washington. It took far too long for Washington to receive the Academy award he deserved for Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress and The Hurricane, let us hope that Luke does not have to wait so long. Also a great piece of casting was Joy Bryant as Fisher's girlfriend, Cheryl. While the part could have been a forgettable support or a standard 'girlfriend' role Bryant imbues it with life. Tender and intelligent the role transcends stereotyping with Bryant inhabiting it, and she makes the part significant and interesting. It doesn't hurt either that Bryant is possibly the most attractive woman you'll see on celluloid this year - the smile alone could thaw the coldest heart. Acting ability and looks - why isn't this woman in everything being made right now. Providing good support in a small role in Salli Richardson as Washington's wife Berta. Saying more with a silence or look than many Hollywood actresses can manage in an entire film she informs the audience of the entire storylines long before any exposition occurs. As for Washington's directing, as I said, it is the directing equivalent of his acting. Taking the story of a man few viewers will have heard of and making it genuinely interesting is a difficult feat which Washington achieves with aplomb. The film is neither rushed nor showy, but it never feels slow or dull. It is measured and nuanced, balancing the humour and drama perfectly. Antwone Fisher may not blow you away if you like big, explosive, plotless Hollywood films but for those who appreciate a finely crafted character piece, with excellent performances and steady well handled direction, this is for you.@@@1 -Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!!@@@0 -Well, it's yet again a film that plays with your sentiments and you come out all soft as opposed to a rocky film. But I'm a sucker for those so I gave it a good score... the acting was very good and there were a lot of feeling. The violence is kept to a minimal which makes a change. I'd have given it a 9 if it were not for the salute at the end! All in all a good movie with very good actors.

@@@1 -This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!@@@0 -Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won.@@@1 -THis movie may be the worst movie I have ever seen. Basically it is right above Leprachaun 5, the only difference is that it missing Ice T. The scene where he does the chick with the carrott...priceless. Oh yeah they made a second one, genius@@@0 -Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year.

Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with "race relations", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.

Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story.

At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself.

@@@1 -This is the crappiest film I have ever seen but in all fairness it's watchable and rather funny. I don't think the film-makers intended it to be your typical Hollywood blockbuster quality. It's just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it's the middle of winter). He then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it's own. This film is really stupid but it's funny. The killings are hilarious.I wouldn't advise you to go and buy it (like I did -the cover looked good!)but if it happens to be on TV one night and you're up for a laugh then stick it on.@@@0 -He glorified himself as a great supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was no `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he showed his brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he pulled a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled no punches and rocked us like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us effective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he could also direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most moving film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Unlike that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional joyous conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the best admirable acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw some of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting as I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was masterful. But what can you expect from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay was of `fisher king' material. I hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Excellent@@@1 -I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.@@@0 -This movie was incredible. I would recommend it to anyone, much better than what I had already anticipated. It was definitely a heart-wrenching spectacular movie. It is an amazing story, with amazing actors and creators. Definitely another great movie with Denzel Washington. (shouldn't surprise anyone) Derek Luke did a wonderful job as well.@@@1 -Jack Frost, no kids it's not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. It's about a sadistic killer named Jack Frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. I happened to catch a copy of this movie so I could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. A killer snow man? Ha, sounds like the perfect comedy/horror movie! Well I was wrong, very wrong.

Jack Frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. But it's a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new DNA fluid. Jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. He returns to the small town of Snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. Here he is ready to kill again, now as a snow man with cooler powers. He can condense into water, shoot out ice cycles as spears, and grow killer fangs. The only question is, who can stop Frost? This movie is below the typical B-Movie line. The movies begins cheesy but as soon as Jack is burned by the acid, it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. The acting for one is appalling! Here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can't act, can act but has a pointless character, or is just here for a few extra bucks. The only good actor is Scott MacDonald who plays Jack. He looks like a young Richard Kiel combined with Frankenstein. Sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. Plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. Groaning, stupid, and bad.

The plot is horrible! Throughout history there have been numerous murderers. A killer in a hockey mask, a killer with a razer glove, a chainsaw wielding moron, a rapid St. Bernard, but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man? Oh come on! And the way the characters are introduced are terrible. For one I really wanted Jack to kill the sheriffs son, I mean giving his dad oats with Antifreeze in them so they won't freeze? All the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. One woman in strangled with Christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh?).

And to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. The first big special effect we have is Jack's DNA mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. I mean it looks like a 60's fashion of art design, PU! Jack looks fake as well. He looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. All the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels.

Jack Frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. I thought it would be a riot but no! It doesn't try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. Jack Frost gets 4 out of 10, it at least made me laugh from it's awfulness. Don't even bother with this piece of trash. Jack Frost= D+@@@0 -Unlike other commenters who have commented on this movie's ability to transcend race, contrarily, I think that this powerful film provides a complex and deep story that addresses institutional racism and the effects thereof. Washington directs Fisher's story with a careful hand and critical eye, relinquishing this cinematic endeavor neither to dismemberment of women's bodies, perpetuating unthoughtful stereotypes, nor satisfying the expectation of the white gaze. I think this film might be a bit too happy in the end; however, it is deeply entrenched in Afro-American culture and discourse to the point that some white spectators may get the feeling of looking into the life of this Afro-American--Antwone Fisher. I have problems with the Naval aspect of the film, but when we look at America, there are not many choices or opportunities for black men who are/were in Fisher's situation or similar situations. Viewers may go to this movie expecting a "Black Movie: what is a "Black Movie?"

Do stereotypes of pimps, whores, drug dealers, single parent homes, and so forth constitute a "Black Movie?" I think Washington as director recognized that Afro-Americans and other people of color deal with human problems like abuse and displaced aggression to name a few. These problems have--historically and presently--only been given light and validity via "Good Will Hunting" and other white movies; it's high time they were given the same recognition and validity as their white counterparts in and out of the media.

Sad to say though, in this racist country, Denzel Washington and Derek Luke will probably have to wait another ten years before they receive an Oscar or anything else. They both will have to wait until they direct or star in a movie that perpetuates the usual racist and sexist stereotypes to get an Oscar. That is to say, Denzel deserved awards for "Malcolm X," "Hurricane" and others before that jive "Training Day" Oscar. That is not to negate or push aside other great actresses and actors of color who are denied their due praise for ingenious work. Yet Hollywood would rather send the message that racism and sexism and heterosexism are acceptable by perpetuating and even rewarding those stereotypes as they appear in countless films such as "American Beauty," "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," "American Pie," and even "Gone with the Wind."

Derek Luke is a helluva actor and I wish him best. All of the other actresses and actors gave superb performances hands down, although I do take issue with Denzel's selection of yet another straight-haired, light-skinned sistuh. That said, everyone should watch this film. However, it may not be for everyone. Much Luv. 10/10@@@1 -A serial killer dies in a snowstorm and gets mutated into Frosty the Snowman's evil twin. Then goes on a killing spree. Interesting plot. Sounds scary. And it is scary. If you're five years old. Otherwise, it's kind of cheesy. I saw it on cable and I'm glad I didn't pay money to see it. It has all the charm and style of a low-budget movie which may become a cult film. I'm sure it has a loyal fan base somewhere. I'm just not in it. Even though I didn't like the movie as a whole, there were some scenes I found amusing. Such as the bathtub scene and the post-explosion scene with the Picasso reference. It was also enjoyable to watch the many ways the heroes try to kill Jack and he just doesn't seem to want to die. In short, "Jack Frost" is a good low-budget B-movie comedy, but a bad low-budget B-movie horror.@@@0 -In his directorial debut, Denzel Washington takes a true story that also happens to be a very difficult story and brings it to the screen with an honesty that we have come to expect from Washington's acting efforts, but now we see this touch as a director.

Recently we have seen some of the disastrous results of kids who have fallen through the cracks of public protection. This story tells of a nightmare existence that leaves terrible scars but suggests the triumph of the human spirit in the end.

We can nit pick on some first effort problems with too many close ups and not the best of editing these scenes but the simplicity of other scenes that project such power cannot be understated.

If the academy overlooks this film it will be travesty. This film pulls no punches and goes to the cold hard facts of the story with a purity that usually doesn't transcend from a novel to the screen. This , of course , is a tribute to the Director.

This is a dandy so go see it and tell your friends to go see it too!@@@1 -Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.@@@0 -I finally purchased and added to my collection a copy of "Show People". I cannot comment any more than what previous viewers have stated and to the characters, plot and overall quality of this film without repeating their own words. Seeing the cameo, out-of-character appearances of so many M-G-M silent stars is worth the viewing in and of itself. I really like the scene where Marion Davies plays herself and is encountered by herself playing the main character of the movie, Patricia Pepoire. Make sure you read her lips as there is no title card indicating what she is saying when she sees Marion Davies but it is something to the effect of "I don't think I like her!" Pop the corn, pop in the tape and get ready to go back more than three quarters of a century in movie making history. Enjoy!@@@1 -The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two.

The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are.

Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything.

But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never.

The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it.

But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann.

What a great, great director.

See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.

Thanks, Anthony.@@@0 -I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one.@@@1 -The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.@@@0 -...intimate and specific. Yes, a bit of a cinderella story, but only after many convoluted turns, earning it's way deeper and deeper into Antwone's psyche. Only superficial viewing can condemn this film as superficial. This is the stuff that heals nations, this is one of our great national stories. Antwone's path to emotional health encompasses a whole breadth of family history, the history of slavery and its aftermath. In his first directorial effort, first of many I hope, Denzel Washington confirms once again, that he has a truly beautiful mind and soul.@@@1 -You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.

My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.

Mmmmm, schlock...@@@0 -This film, which is based on a true story, comes from first time director and long time actor, Denzel Washington. Denzel Washington has given us some of the best performances of the last decade, as a black soldier in the Civil War in Glory, and a lawyer in the acclaimed Philadelphia. And of course, he made special notoriety last year when he won the Academy Award for Best Actor in Training Day, in which Denzel Washington became the first African American to receive the award for Best Actor. I guess Denzel wanted a change of pace, so he chose to direct Antwone Fisher, in which he also stars. Fisher is played by Derek Luke, who is new to the silver screen, but has made some guest appearances on such television shows as King of Queens, and he will be appearing in the upcoming film release of Biker Boyz.

This is a truly well done film from Denzel Washington, considering it was his first time directing. Undoubtedly, Denzel felt some kind of commitment and believed in the real life story of Antwone Fisher. Antwone Fisher is about a young African American man in the Navy who constantly gets into fights, and after one particular brawl he is sent to see a Navy psychiatrist named Jerome Davenport, played by Denzel Washington. Davenport helps Antwone to deal with his troubled past and learn to move on with his life, by finding his birth mother who had to give him up at birth because she was in prison. What makes this film good is the fact that it's not overly melodramatic. I was expecting something a little more like Good Will Hunting, with a lot of swearing, fighting and vulgarity. Not that I didn't like Good Will Hunting, or the swearing, fighting and vulgarity of the film were out of place. Quite the contrary! However, Antwone Fisher is a true story, and I don't think that Washington wanted to sensationalize the story for dramatic affect in the film. Don't get me wrong, there are moments when we see Antwone fighting, carrying on and having moments when it seems like the world is closing in on him. After all, in his first session with his psychiatrist, the character played by Washington, Devenport asks Fisher where he was born, and Fisher's response is, `from under a rock,' an obvious jab at the pressures waning on Antwone Fisher's soul. But I had to appreciate the fact that this film wasn't sensationalized for dramatic affect. I think it shows real character on the part of Denzel Washington to deliver a more realistic story and to avoid the typical clichés that are common in Hollywood films, even those based on true stories. One other point that I would like to bring up about Antwone Fisher is the acting. Over all, performances were good in the film, but not great. At times, I think it was a bit obvious that the main characters were actors, but overall, to complain about performances in this film would be ludicrous. One actress that I would like to point out in this film is Viola Davis. She plays Antwone's mother, but she says barely two sentences in the movie at all, but not so much because she appears at the end of the film, but more because she in shock that her long lost son, Antwone has found her. What I would like to point out about her as an actress in the lack of use of her. She in basically a character actress, and I haven't seen her play any really elaborate roles. She made appearances in Traffic, Out Of Sight, Kate & Leopold, and two recent films: Far From Heaven and Solaris. In Steven Soderberg's remake of Solaris, she played a scientist on a doomed space craft orbiting a planet. In that film, she is confronted by George Clooney's character and she drawn to tears by what Clooney tells her in a particular scene. When I first saw Solaris, I remember seeing her tear up in the scene and thinking, wow, this woman can act. It was as if you could feel the character's grief. In that brief shot of her face, she gave so much expression and I honestly felt very sorry for her character's sadness and trouble in the film. I think she has definite potential as an actress and should be used more often perhaps in leading roles, rather than just as a character driven actress. Nonetheless, Antwone Fisher is a very good movie. Denzel Washington, as always, pulls off a great performance and he gives us a great directorial debut. Also, Derek Luke is a very talented actor. I think that Antwone Fisher will bring his immense critical fame for his portrayal of the troubled man, but I think that his public popularity will increase with the release of Biker Boyz, which also stars Lawrence Fishburn. Antwone Fisher is based on the book `Finding Fish: A Memoir,' by Antwone Quenton Fisher. ***@@@1 -It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman.@@@0 -ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing.

Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.

Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy – check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together.

Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him.

My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.

All the actors represented their parts well.

In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.

Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.

Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.

Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.

Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.

Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER.@@@1 -and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.@@@0 -I just watched Antwone Fisher on BRAVO. What an awesome movie and incredible young man. This movie is a must see for anyone who is dealing with how to overcome childhood abuse and abandonment as an adult. Denzel Washington puts in an outstanding performance as well as the young man who plays Antwone Fisher. Kleenex alert--Feel good and tearful. The most heartrending moment is when he finally meets his mother, who he was taken away from at 2 months of age. And one of the most courageous was when he stood up to his abusive foster mother and sister. I saw this movie on Bravo in 2008 and only wish I had known about it years ago. Definitely a movie to add to my DVD collection.@@@1 -I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.@@@0 -"And the time came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom" - Anais Nin Marcel Proust says, "The real voyage of discovery lies in not seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes." Author and screenwriter Antwone Fisher joined the U.S. Navy to see new landscapes but the demons of his past prevented him from seeing the world through new eyes. Based on his autobiography "Finding Fish" written many years after the events, his story is dramatized in the film Antwone Fisher, Denzel Washington's first directorial effort. It is a heartfelt if somewhat formulaic look at the painful process of moving from being consumed by one's past to being able to live life in present time.

Required to attend therapy sessions after several outbursts of anger at the base, the painful aspects of his childhood are shown in flashback as the grown up Antwone (Derek Luke) recounts his life in sessions with Navy Psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). He is at first unwilling to talk, but when he begins, the floodgates are opened. After his father was shot to death by a girlfriend and Antwone was abandoned by his mother after being released from prison, he was placed in a foster home where he lived for fourteen years, suffering humiliation and sexual abuse. According to Antwone, the treatment by his foster mother Mrs. Tate (Novella Nelson) who referred to him only as "nigga" and by his cousin Nadine (Yolonda Ross) was in fact much worse than shown on the screen.

The only friend he has is a local by named Jesse (Jascha Washington) who, later in the film, only adds to his feelings of abandonment. It is difficult to build a film around psychiatric sessions but it was done successfully in Ordinary People and Good Will Hunting with a great deal more dramatic interest but it succeeds here because of the dominant performances of Washington and Luke, though the film's attempt to compress eleven years into a few months seems a bit too facile. Davenport's humanity and warmth, however, allows Fisher to feel safe enough to discuss his difficult past and Cheryl (Joy Bryant), his new girlfriend who is also in the Navy, supports him in his struggle to achieve a breakthrough.

With Cheryl's help and Dr. Davenport's counseling, Antwone develops enough self-esteem to return to Cleveland and begin the journey to try and find his mother in order to complete the past. What comes through in Derek Luke's incredible performance is Antwone's longing for acceptance, dramatized in a heartbreaking dream shown at the beginning of the film in which he is the guest of honor at a banquet filled with people who love him. Comedian Mort Sahl once said that "people just have to remember what we're all here for: to find our way home..." Antwone Fisher touches not only on the longing of one young person to find his way home but reaches all those who have cried themselves to sleep, not knowing the joy of being loved.@@@1 -Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.

The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.

This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.@@@0 -A great story, based on a true story about a young black man and all the difficulties along the road. Being that this is Denzel Washington's first ever movie that he himself was gonna direct, i have to admit i was a tad sceptical, but who wouldn't be..? But then again, he's a great actor with plently of years of experience, and the end result turned out great. The story is told in a great way, making you that has had difficulties during your childhood, and young adulthood, see yourself in those situations. So, it hits you hard, letting you know your not the only one going through hell. In all, a touching story about a young man trying to make it in this f***ed up world. (The story is based on the life of Antwone Fisher, born 3. August 1959, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, whom was also the writer of this movie) Strongly recommended. 8/10@@@1 -A cheap exploitation film about a mothers search for her daughter who has been kidnapped by people who make snuff porno films. The trail leads the mother all over Europe as she searches for her child and we in the audience struggle to stay asleep.

This is one of the countless soft-core sleaze films that are made for people who want the excitement of porno with out the stigma or danger of it showing up on their credit card bill.Personally I'd rather have the stigma since those films tend to be more interesting and honest about what we're seeing. This is suppose to be a sexy thriller but its not. Mostly its people talking about things followed by lots of walking from place to place and lead to lead.Periodically through out the film various people get undressed and everything has more than a touch of S&M to the proceedings. The violence and fetish material is of the sort to provoke laughter rather than horror or even excitement, its all so incredibly fake. Worse there is not even enough nudity to keep it interesting. (Basically par for the course for many of these films)

You'll forgive my lack of details but it simply is a dull boring film that I stayed with to the end hoping for something remotely prurient to occur, but there was nothing. The most interesting thing was the blonde haired villainess with the huge over bite and nose the size of a Buick. I watched her with morbid fascination wondering what she had looked like as a young girl and wondering whether she had had plastic surgery, not the type of things you should be thinking about in a gripping thriller.

Avoid.@@@0 -this is a film about life, the triumph over adversity and the wonders of the human spirit. I defy anyone not to shed a tear by the end of the movie. This is more than just a tear-jerker, its an engaging, thought-provoking drama with excellent performances from all the cast but especially derek Luke and denzel washington. 7 years on, I'm amazed that Luke is still a virtual unknown and washington only directed one other film. Nevertheless, apart from a slow build-up, the story of this foster child's trials and tribulations and how it still affects him in adulthood is the sort of movie that stays with you long after you have seen it. Like many fox searchlight pictures, this was more of a sleeper hit and didn't get the mass critical acclaim it deserves. The scene where Antwone finally meets his mother summed up the movie for me, there were so many ways that could have been done and it could have been all schmaltzy or it could have been unrealistic but Washington struck exactly the right tone, his mother never said a word and could only shed a tear, while antowne asked simply why. Her overwhelming guilt prevented her from saying anything, what could she say to defend herself? One of the most moving cinematic scenes I have seen.@@@1 -Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.@@@0 -This movie describes the life of somebody who grew up in the worst of circumstances but unlike many people he actually grew up to be a respectable person. Whats more is that this is a true story.

Antwone Fisher is so innocent and yet he was abused such just because he was not white. Antwone Fisher has been married to the same women for ten years and he never fooled around with women, coke, cigars, weed, alcohol, or any of those things that are very popular in the places he was growing up.

There is not much more to say about this movie it is excellent. The only rating I can give it is a 10/10.@@@1 -This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!)@@@0 -Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with "church going" abusers who use the "n-word" not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.

The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.

If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.

One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's "file" once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those "bright lights" in the darkness of the system.

The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.

As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem.@@@1 -Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.

After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.

There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).

All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.@@@0 -There are some wonderful things about this movie. Marion Davies could act, given the right property; she is wonderful in comedic roles. William Haines could act, and you can see why he was one of the screen's most popular leading men. (Until a potential scandal forced him from the business).

The story is a bit trite, but handled so beautifully that you don't notice. King Vidor's direction is one of the principle reasons for this. The producer? The boy genius, Irving Thalberg.

It's about movie making, and you get to see the process as it was done in 1928, the cameras, sets, directors directing and actors emoting. You get to see (briefly) some of the major stars of the day; even Charlie Chaplin does a turn as himself, seeking an autograph. You also catch glimpses of Eleanor Boardman, Elinor Glyn, Claire Windsor, King Vidor, and many others who are otherwise just names and old photographs.

Please, even if you're not a fan of the silents, take the time to catch this film when you can. It's really a terrific trip back in time.@@@1 -I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.

I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie:

The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns – that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.

"Where is the constable? asks Brennan.

"Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats," someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time."

The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called "giving a risqué performance in the theatre," generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.

In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. "No man has yet taken a gun away from me," said the American. "Well, I'm taking it", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.

In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime – let alone a murder – in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway – he is called Gannon in the picture – can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).

{in the movie the lone Mountie says} "Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it."

"Then why aren't there more of you?"

"Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you."

"When?"

"There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May."

"What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?"

"Part of the time."

"What about the rest of the time?"

"Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal…"

The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion – that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence – is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.

To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief.

…excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975.@@@0 -This movie is Great! It touched my stone cold heart. I couldn't relate about the racial discrimination that Antwone has experienced because I'm living in my own country. I guess it is really hard to be discriminated.

We watched this film in our sociology class in New Era University,and I didn't knew that It was a true story, I thought it was just created by an intellectual who want to bring a fresh air in the industry. It is very good.

The part that shocked me was when Nadine abused Antwone (who was just six) sexually. If I were on his shoes, I could have jumped a ten-story high building. I salute him for he being so strong!

The scene that touched me here is when Antwone finally saw his mother Eva face to face. He did not bitched her or whatever,instead he told her about the achievements that he got within the long years that they have been separated. (I think I'll do that when I get the chance of tracing my roots.)@@@1 -I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.

As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.

Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.

Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10@@@0 -I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a "missing piece" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.

I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people "yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!"

It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was "lost" AND then the "Miranda & Ashley" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and "only occasionally" used heroin!

There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a "Best Picture" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society.@@@1 -Despite the lavish production numbers and wonderful costumes this film is a chore to watch. The murder-mystery plot is just a vehicle to mount the musical numbers on but it often brings the proceedings to a staggering halt besides not being very involving. Although there has obviously been a lot of money spent on them the numbers are badly staged and poorly photographed. It's obviously a pre-code film because the girls often wear very little clothing and there's even a song singing the praises of marijuana! The performances are all one-note although it's nice to see Carl Brisson in a musical but when Victor McLaglen, as the police Lieutenent, lurches into view for the umpteenth time on the hunt for clues, you may want to throw in the towel or at least fast-forward to the next number. Pity the patrons who were trapped in the cinema on its release though!@@@0 -Not having seen the film in the original theater release, I was happily surprised when the DVD arrived, since this film did not have the wide distribution it merited.

Denzel Washington directorial debut and the finished product have nothing to envy other films about the same theme by more accomplished directors. The film has a very professional look. It shows that Mr. Washington has learned a lot being on the other side of the camera. He brings a different angle to this film.

One of the best things the film has is, without a doubt, the fine performance by Derek Luke. He is an actor who, with the right guidance, will go far, no doubt. His take on the troubled young man, at this point of his life, in turmoil and suffering for a bad hand life, up to now, has dealt him, is very true. His Antwone is a fine portrait of a man in pain who is basically very good and has so much to give, but no one seems to see that side of his character.

At the worst time of his despair, Antwone is sent to Dr. Davenport, played by Mr. Washington, in a very sober, if somehow subdued manner. Because of the angst within Antwone, he misses the opportunity of opening himself to this man, who wants to help, but because of the constrains placed on his office, just have three sessions and then has to dismiss his patient.

Things work out, as Antwone is able to convince the doctor to keep on working with him. Antwone's past is revealed in detail. The abuse he suffers at the hands of Mrs. Tate, his foster mother, is brutal, to say the least. The attempt at the hand of an older woman in the Tate's household of a sexual molestation, gives Antwone a bitter taste that stays with him throughout his adult life, as he has been scarred by the shame he carries with him.

Antwone finds love at last with Cheryl, who is patient enough to make him see a different world by the love she and support she gives him.

The lead performances are very good indeed. Denzel Washington's Dr. Davenport has his own problems too. He is not a happy camper either. He can help Antwone, but he cannot help himself, or his relationship with an adoring wife.

The talent in the film is incredible. Joy Bryant makes a fine Cheryl. Novella Nelson, who is a fine actress is superb as Mrs. Tate, the abusing foster mother.

The reunion of Antwone with his unknown family is a bit too sugary and sentimental, but of course, if one is to believe that Fisher finds happiness at last, one has to accept that part of the film as well.@@@1 -BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!

The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.

If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.

I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.

Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.@@@0 -The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live')@@@1 -You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the "quirk of the month club" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.

As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.

Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word "been" like "bean", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's "The House of Games". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.@@@0 -Every one should see this movie because each one of us is broken in some way and it may help us realize 1) My life isn't as bad as I thought it was and 2) How important it is to adopt a child in need. There are so many out there. To think that the movie was actually based on a real person made us think deep about life and how the world has and always will be. Corrupt, but that corruption doesn't have to reach your home. We all have a choice! Definitely recommend this one... and while you're at it, I'd like to throw in "The Color Purple" and "Woman, Thou Art Loosed" by T.D. Jakes.

These are all movies that are based on life and give us a glimpse of life.@@@1 -I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short "Surviving Desire" in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant "Henry Fool." But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's disgraceful.

After a choppy and expeditious start, "Fay Grim" devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.

The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's his only spoken scene in the film!

Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this the gentle-natured Hartley's most violent film to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already all wrong from the word go.

As for the other new characters, Angus James, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to crappy film student).

This piece is a complete disaster, a dreadful mess that isn't even good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the "real world", one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. In doing so, Hartley tracks sh*t all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.

I have rarely been so depressed at the movies, and I'm counting "Leaving Las Vegas," which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.

Grim, indeed.@@@0 -A stunning film of high quality.

Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.

An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.

Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.

In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.

Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.

One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.

The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.

And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10.@@@1 -First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.

Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.

The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.

When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.@@@0 -An adaption of the book 'Finding Fish'. This story is about a troubled young sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) who tells the painful story of his past to a psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). A brilliant debut performance by Derek Luke and an always stunning performance by Denzel Washington.

This movie was incredible on so many levels and I was disappointed that it didn't win an Oscar, I think it was because it was released at a bad time that's why it was overlooked. I strongly recommend this film to everyone, you'll be touched by his story and it really does make the audience become empathetic with this young man that is Antwone Fisher.

If you like inspirational true stories, then watch Antwone Fisher.

Thank you@@@1 -This is a low-budget spoof of the espionage genre. To help frame your expectations, you should know that: (1) The acting is wildly heavy-handed. The stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement, frequent hand gestures, and off-key pacing. (2) The script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. Oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) Shots are frequently framed in off-balance angles, poking fun at genre excesses. (4) A pop-eyed Jeff Goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner.

The film has a guiding intelligence, deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the B-films of the 1930's: a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by Carl Sagan. The film's over-the-top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. In an early running gag, Fay Grim's son Ned is so frequently told to leave that you can't help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. Parker Posey's nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film.

The film's slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. The film's impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. Moreover, it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. The musical score is intentionally heavy handed, and I found this (and the off-kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous.

The over-the-top acting, the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies/counter conspiracies, and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. The movie is much too long at 158 minutes.

That said, fans who are receptive to the film's sarcasm might want to watch again ... using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. The film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy-handed than light-hearted. But, the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. The film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films, fans of director Hal Harley, or devotees of Parker Posey (who has the most camera time).@@@0 -Arthur Bach is decidedly unhappy in his life as a multi-millionaire and is attracted to people 'below him' in social standing - he pays for a hooker in the opening scenes and then is enormously attracted to a shoplifter.

He drinks quite a lot too, and sometimes he is driving while drinking, too, which of course is not funny, ever.

The movie is great but behind the comedy is some reality, too. John Gielgud wipes the floor with everyone else on screen and created a character for the ages. Talk about deserving an Oscar. Moore and Minnelli have their moments, but its Gielgud as "Hobson" you'll remember the most.@@@1 -I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...@@@0 -Written and directed by Steve Gordon. Running time: 97 minutes. Classified PG.

It was the quintessential comedy of the decade. It won Sir John Gielgud the Academy Award. It was even featured in VH1's "I Love the 80's." And it looks just as good today as it did upon it's initial release. Arthur is the acclaimed comedy classic about a drunken millionaire (played with enthusiasm and wit by Dudley Moore in an Oscar-nominated performance) who must choose between the woman he loves and the life he's grown accustomed to. While the basic plot is one big cliche, there's nothing trite about this congenial combination of clever dialogue and hilarious farce. Arthur Bach is essentially nothing more than a pretentious jerk, but you can't help but like him. Especially when he delivers lines such as, "Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!" He's also a delineation from the archetypical movie hero: unlike most wealthy characters we see on the silver screen, he's not ashamed of being filthy rich. In one scene, a man asks him, "What does it feel like to have all that money?," to which he responds, "It feels great." Moore lends such charisma and charm to a character that would otherwise be loathed by his audience. And Gielgud is simply perfect as the arrogant servant, addressing his master with extreme condescension in spite of the fact that his salary depends on him. Arthur is one of those movies that doesn't try to be brilliant or particularly exceptional: it just comes naturally. The screenplay -- which also earned a nod from the Academy -- is saturated with authentic laugh-out-loud dialogue. This is the kind of movie that, when together with a bunch of poker buddies, you quote endlessly to one another. It also looks at its characters with sincere empathy. There have been a number of comedies that attempt to dip into drama by including the death or illness of a principal star (including both Grumpy Old Men's), but few can carry it off because we just don't care. When this movie makes the dubious decision to knock off the butler, it actually works, because we genuinely like these people. Why should you see Arthur? The answer is simple: because it's an all-around, non-guilty pleasure. At a period in which films are becoming more and more serious, Arthur reminds us what it feels like to go to the movies and just have a good time.

**** - Classic@@@1 -I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.

I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.

Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.

But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.@@@0 -I was too young to remmeber when I first saw this movie. But I saw it for like the second time about 7 years ago. My sister told me I had to see it. Now my whole family has it memorized. We quote it at least once a day. I absolutly love this movie.I still laugh after all this time. Sure, it's about a really, really drunk millionare that is irresponsible. The whole point is that he still has the humanity lost in the others that we see in the movie. And that he is willing to give it all up for love. I highly recomend this movie to anyone who wants a laugh. A lot of laughs. Its hallarious, sweet, and if your a movie buff, it will truely change your idea of "Funny". Watch it with a group of your friends or your family and I promise, you will never have nothing to talk about ever again with some Authur lines in your head. It will make you laugh for years to come.

It is really hard, in my family, to find a movie that everyone likes. But this movie, I feel, made us closer. And I know it will do the same for you!!@@@1 -It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.

It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment.

Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.

I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!@@@0 -Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film.@@@1 -Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next.@@@0 -Dudley Moore is fantastic in this largley unknown classic. This film is very witty film that relies hugely on the actors talent. Without Dudley Moore, John Gielgud, Liza Minnelli, and a few others, this film could have been a disaster. It is not always well shot and at times has some very corny music that tries to force a mood (the "psycho"-like music at the wedding fight), but the acting overcomes it. The character Arthur is hilarious, with his drunken comments. But he develops well into a more mature, well rounded character as he learns to live by his own free will. The end is fairly corny, though. I wont give it away, but it could be improved. Worth seeing many times.@@@1 -Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.

Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.

Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers.@@@0 -As drunken millionaire playboy Arthur Bach, Dudley Moore is perfect as a grown man trapped in childhood. As it turned out, the role fit Moore so perfectly, it trapped him as an actor as well. Many disappointments soon followed (including this film's pale sequel), yet that doesn't diminish the charm or appeal of this picture, which is cleverly written and directed. Some of Moore's drunk scenes are forced, parts of the film are wobbly, but the cast performs with so much relish it's a difficult movie to resist. It has a very big heart and gives Oscar-winner John Gielgud a sly, dryly amusing role as Arthur's valet, Hobson; his relationship with Arthur is delicious and they have a miraculous rapport. Liza Minnelli (as a blue-collar love-interest) is sassy in a low-key and Moore is brash, but deft and lively; he never shook off the shadow of Arthur, but at least we have this document of a career high-point to cherish. *** from ****@@@1 -This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.@@@0 -

What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant "Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets." The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a "take the money and run role",He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso.

The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned.@@@1 -What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.

The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.

The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.

And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!@@@0 -Excellent comedy starred by Dudley Moore supported by Liza Minnelli and good-speaking John Gielgud. Moore is Arthur, a man belonging to a multimillionaire family, who was near to get 750 million dollars provided that he marries to a lady (Susan) from another multimillionaire family. In principle, Arthur accepted the conditions, but he finally refused when he met nice and poor Linda Marolla (Liza Minneli). Arthur was just a parasite because he did not work, he only enjoyed himself drinking hard and having fun with prostitutes. After several serious thoughts in his life and for the first time, Arthur decided not to marry Susan only few minutes before their wedding. The end was happy for Linda and Arthur although the latter knew that his life will change in the coming future. This comedy is a good lesson for life for anyone. Rich people are not usually happy with their ways of life.@@@1 -I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.

It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.

Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.

Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.

This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).

This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.

@@@0 -This is one of my favorite comedies ever. Not wanting to condone the uninspiring lifestyle of its hero, but taken for what it's worth and not as trivializing alcoholism, the movie is simply a lot of fun. It tells the unlikely tale of a perpetually drunk, irresponsible 40 something bachelor named Arthur who is set to inherit a vast fortune, but only if he marries Susan, chosen because the family thinks she might make something of him. Arthur proposes, but then unwisely falls for Linda, a waitress and petty thief.

Dudley Moore is perfect as Arthur, the world's most endearing drunk, whose antics are a laugh a minute. Admittedly, Moore IS Arthur and I agree with those who can imagine no other actor in the role. The ladies of the piece are also well portrayed. Liza Minnelli sparkles as Linda, and her on screen chemistry with Moore is great. Jill Clayburgh plays Susan, the wealthy and more appropriate woman chosen for Arthur.

However, this film is literally made by Sir John Gielgud, who portrays Arthur's sarcastic but moral butler, Hobson. It's obvious these two have had a great mutual affection during Hobson's longtime employment. Hobson is Arthur's best friend and purveyor of unsolicited commentary and advice. The most interesting relationship in this film is not Arthur's romance at all, but his unusual rapport with this witty and of course perpetually disapproving servant. It's the butler you'll remember best long after the closing credits roll.@@@1 -Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10@@@0 -This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.

I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.

Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").

Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.

Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.

The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.

This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.@@@1 -If you are looking for a film the portrays the pointless and boring existence of middle class lives caught in a web of non-communication and false ideals, then this is the film for you. If you also what the film to be engaging and keep your interest, then you should probably look elsewhere. There are many films that do this far better. For example, try some of the darker films by Bergman. The Filmmaker felt that in order to show the spiritual poverty of the middle class he should subject the viewer to one agonizingly dull and vacuous incident after another until the film finally comes to its tortuous and pathetic end. If you value your time there are far better ways to spend two hours, like cleaning your house, for example.@@@0 -I have loved this movie ever since it's debut in 1981! I have lost track of how many times I have seen it! It never fails to make me laugh or cheer me up if i am feeling down. The three leads are fantastic and the script is priceless, plus how do you not get nostalgic hearing the theme song? I think I quote this movie without realizing it. I basically know the entire script, so when someone is watching it for the first time I have to hold back saying something about how funny the next line it. I can't even narrow it down, although, Sir John's character probably gets the most memorable ones. The famous "I'll alert the media" when Arthur announces his intention to take a bath is still priceless, but the list is truly endless. The scene's at Arthur's soon to be fiancé's father's house are a scream, particularly his interactions with the moose. Do yourself a favour and see this movie!@@@1 -I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.@@@0 -Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).

This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel.@@@1 -Earlier today I got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which I encountered a curious statement: "the character development in newer movies just isn't nearly as good or interesting as it used to be." Depending on the film(s) in question, this can be attributed to a number of things, sometimes generic special effects and plot-driven Hollywood garbage like War Of The Worlds, but in the case of over-the-top, uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put "art" back into cinema, it's movies like Dog Days that are to blame.

I normally have a very high tolerance for movies, no matter how dull or pointless I find them (ranging from good, long ones like Andrei Rublev and Dogville, to ones I've considered painful to sit through a la Alpha Dog and Wild Wild West). I shut this movie off 45 minutes in, which is 30 minutes more than I actually should have. I wasn't interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. In an attempt to say something about the dregs of society, this film too easily falls into being self-indulgent, trite, and exploitative in a very sincere sense. Granted, I've seen many disturbing movies on the same subject, but there are so many better films out there about depressing, pathetic people (Happiness, Gummo, Kids, Salo, Storytelling, Irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. Dog Days had none more than an eighth grader's distaste for society, choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are, and instead choosing to be a dull, awful, and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of "art." This isn't a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society, it's just boring and nothing worth caring about.@@@0 -"If I wanted to dribble, I'd call a nurse."

"Haven't you had enough?" ..."More than enough."

"You got me a choo-choo."

"If I begin to die, please remove (the cowboy hat) from my head. That is not the way I wish to be remembered."

Some of the wonderfully humorous, and often insightful, quotations from this charming and often insightful film. Dudley Moore is charming, lovable and rich. Sir John Gielgud is aristocratic, charming and loving...and poor. The two have a non-father/father and son relationship which defines the man whom Arthur is to become. Will he follow his heart and soul, or just his wealth? Over twenty-five years, I've returned to this movie, with glee and amusement and joy. It is a movie to return to, time and time again, and remember what is important in life, as short as it is.

Judge Miller@@@1 -This movie reminds me of "Irréversible (2002)", another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of "Camping Cosmos (1996)" where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.@@@0 -My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"!@@@1 -This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.@@@0 -I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.

Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.

Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.

Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs.@@@1 -This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.

If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.@@@0 -This is one of those movies that I've seen so many times that I can quote most of it. Some of the lines in this movie are just unbeatable. I particularly enjoy watching him stumble and fall while drunk, go out to the fancy restaurant drunk and the part with the moose.

I don't know how many times I have seen this sequence but it's funny every time. From the moment Arthur gets to Susan's Dad's place to the bit with the moose, you pretty much laugh the whole time. I remember watching the out-takes regarding the bit with the moose. It went down just like I'd imagined it'd be like. They were all laughing so hard it was difficult for them to film it.

The late Sir John Gielgud was a wonderful addition to this. His demeanor, his one-liners and the way he handled Arthur were all equally hilarious. It's always a funny moment when he whacks him over the head with his hat or tells him he's a spoiled little ____. I laugh every time I listen to the "I'm going to have a bath" and the lines that follow.@@@1 -The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?@@@0 -When you see this movie you begin to realise what a drastically under-utilised asset the late Dudley Moore was. There should be a dozen movies like this in our archive.

He was already top-notch talent before he went to Hollywood, both as a comedian and a musician. But mostly he is remembered for his pairing with Peter Cook, on television and in one or two indifferent British movies. Perhaps the best of these was 'Bedazzled'.

He always tended to be eclipsed by Cook, who's jealousy and meanness rifted their partnership and enabled Moore to realise his true potential in America. 'Arthur' is the result.

This is a truly splendid movie. Moore's clownish comedy as a drunkard is undeniable. The script is perfectly suited to his manner with lot's of hilarious, almost surreal conversational digressions. There is something so British about him that I'm actually surprised he found such an appeal to American tastes. Tommy Cooper, an anarchic comedian after the same fashion tended to draw a blank. It is Moore's almost childish vulnerability that is so endearing.

Liza Minelli and John Guilgud tend to play straight roles against him, but still have some excellent one-liners. John Guilgud in particular delivers his with a sarcastic and acerbic authority that is a treasure to watch. He invariably steals any scene in which he features and thoroughly deserved his Oscar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has never played any other comic role.

There is a follow-up movie called 'Arthur 2 - On The Rocks'. It never attains the same sublime levels of fun that this one reaches, but it is still rather good even so. Guilgud only gets a cameo appearance at the beginning and as a ghost. It is darker. And there is some interesting soul-searching. It will disappoint if you watch 'Arthur' first.

Hollywood seemed to loose interest in cuddly Dudley after these two outings. He eventually returned to Britain, dejected and apparently dying.

But 'Arthur' is a sample of what might have been. We can only imagine the other great movies he should have made.

Your're sadly missed, Dudley.@@@1 -Documentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting.@@@0 -After seeing Arthur on TV numerous times I laughed so hard Dudley Moore's role as Arthur a happy go luck drunken millionaire was hysterical but John Gielgud as his servant/ father figure Hobson was equally charming. I bought the DVD a few weeks ago and watched it, despite the passage of nearly 27 years it's still as enjoyable as it ever was Liza Minnelli's role as the love interest was fascinating the chemistry between the two was magic.

Arthur Bach, (Moore) is a spoiled drunken millionaire who has a bar bill that reads like the national debt he has no desire to grow up and enjoys acting like a child. His activities are supervised by his dry English butler Hobson (Gielgud) it appears that nobody really cares about Arthur except for him, Arthur's father (Barbour) offers an ultimatum if he doesn't marry the dreadful blonde socialite Susan Johnson (Eikenberry) in four weeks he'll cut off his son's inheritance of 750 million dollars.

However Arthur meets and falls in love with Linda Marolla (Minnelli)a young working class waitress and tie thief,now he faces a difficult decision marry for love or money. When Hobson dies Arthur finally grows up and breaks it off with Susan before the wedding, leaving him to keep both the money and his true love.

Arthur is a truly enchanting romantic comedy for for everyone@@@1 -I read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.

He wrote : " A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful."

I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari.

Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,

Ziba@@@0 -Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune "Arthur's Theme", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with "Arthur."@@@1 -This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.@@@0 -I remember trying a few minutes of this film, I'm very surprised I didn't watch all of it, from director Steve Gordon, his only film directed before dying of heart failure. Basically Arthur Bach (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Dudley Moore) is the happy drunk millionaire with everything he could want, a mansion, a butler Hobson (Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Sir John Gielgud), and plenty of booze. He is to inherit $750,000,000 if he marries the daughter of fellow millionaire Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott), they woman he and the family have chosen, Susan (Jill Eikenberry). But instead, Arthur finds himself falling for Queens waitress Linda Marolla (Golden Globe nominated Liza Minnelli), which of course is threatening the inheritance, and 3/4 of his family's fortune from father Stanford (Thomas Barbour) and Aunt Martha (Geraldine Fitzgerald). After the death of Hobson, Arthur, on the day of the wedding, disobeys the family's wishes, but Aunt Martha still gives Arthur the inheritance to live happily ever after with true love Linda. Also starring Ted Ross as Bitterman, Barney Martin as Ralph Marolla, Anne De Salvo as Gloria - Hooker, Maurice Copeland as Uncle Peter Bach, Justine Johnston as Aunt Pearl Bach, Florence Tarlow as Mrs. Nesbitt, Marcella Lowery as Harriet - Martha's Maid, John Bentley as Perry and Peter Evans as Preston Langley - Party Guest. Moore is wonderfully funny and a little cringing as the almost always drunk millionaire, Minnelli is likable as the woman he loves, and Gielgud of course makes a great Oscar winning impression as Moore's humorous humble sarcastic servant, a terrific screwball comedy. It won the Oscar for Best Song for "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" (it also won the Golden Globe) (it was number 79 on 100 Years, 100 Songs), and it was nominated Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, it was nominated the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Burt Bacharach, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Sir John Gielgud was number 35 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and the film was number 53 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!@@@1 -Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.

First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.

There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.

The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production.

Best skip this and watch the two originals.@@@0 -I watched this over the Christmas period, I don't know why but it reminds me of Christmas so I watched it, so there we are.

Arthur is a film I watch all the way through with a big dumb smile on my face and its a mixture of special performances, great jolly music and a script crackling with wit and charm that causes it.

Dudley Moore makes a character that could well be hated very easily (spoiled, rich, lazy drunk who feels sorry for himself) but turns him into someone you love. Liza Minelli is great as Linda Morolla a queens waitress who manages to pull off the tough/soft on the inside lady Arthur nearly gives up his world for. John Gielgud gets all the juicy lines and polishes them off with relish.

I can watch Arthur again and again and it always makes me feel good, check it out if you need a lift its a lovely film.@@@1 -1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.

Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.

Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.@@@0 -Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.

Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does.

The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.

And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.

Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.

John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.

So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review.@@@1 -This movie shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?@@@0 -Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.@@@1 -This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!@@@0 -The father of the Who's alcoholic drummer, Keith Moon, was named Arthur. I found so many similarities between Dudley Moore and Keith Moon in this movie. Liza Minelli, who usually OVERACTS, did quite a good job in this one, and was able to turn cheek on Dudley Moore in every turn. Yes, I agree, Sir John stole absolutely every scene. It was a very "different" movie, enabling the viewer to have a glimpse into another life. We often try to catch a rerun of this movie on satellite. God rest Dudley Moore; this was such an enjoyable movie. Much satire and thumbs down to the rich and snobby/affluent. The close friendship between Moore and Sir John is rather endearing.@@@1 -The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.@@@0 -Arthur Bach needs to grow up, but that is unfortunately not the only thing he needs to do. According to his extremely rich father, Arthur has to marry a certain wealthy Susan Johnson or he's cut off from the family money ($750 million dollars worth). The problem is, Arthur doesn't love Susan (though I hear she makes some good chicken) and has just fallen head-over-heels for the waitress and part-time shop-lifter Linda Marolla. Arthur is an interesting fellow. He's really just a big kid, born into riches with at least one person looking after him every second of every day. Working just rubs Arthur the wrong way - he likes to have fun, womanize, and of course, drink. Drinking gives Arthur a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde complex; and while that gets him into all sorts of trouble, it's absolutely hilarious to watch on screen.

Dudley Moore is great here in this film as Arthur, earning an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for his performance. Moore is fantastic with the comedic aspects of the film, turning the already funny lines into unforgettable comedic gold, but he is also great in bringing Arthur down to a relatable level and making the character likable. Moore has some help in the co-star department - Liza Minnelli is great as Lina, the spirited nobody who Arthur can't get enough of, and John Gielgud is terrific as Arthur's butler Hobson. Gielgud won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance in this film, and there's no doubting why. Hobson has a stone-solid dry wit and stuck up attitude, but he's always looking out for Arthur - and Gielgud is perfect in the role. Steve Gordon's 1981 film Arthur is short and simple, but delivers laughs a-plenty.@@@1 -I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.

The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.

There are a few problems with this film:

1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste!

2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them?

3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.

4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.

5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.

Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.@@@0 -1928 is in many ways a "lost year" in motion pictures. Just as some of the finest films of the silent era were being made in every genre, sound was coming in and - while reaping great profits at the box office - was setting the art of film-making back about five years as the film industry struggled with the new technology.

"Show People" is one of the great silent era comedies. The film shows that William Haines had comic skills beyond his usual formula of the obnoxious overconfident guy who turns everyone against him, learns his lesson, and then redeems himself by winning the football game, the polo game, etc. This movie is also exhibit A for illustrating that Marion Davies was no Susan Alexander Kane. She had excellent comic instincts and timing. This film starts out as the Beverly Hillbillies-like adventure of Peggy Pepper (Marion Davies) and her father, General Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper, fresh from the old South. General Pepper has decided that he will let some lucky movie studio executive hire his daughter as an actress. While at the studio commissary, the Peppers run into Billy Boone (William Haines), a slapstick comedian. He gets Peggy an acting job. She's unhappy when she finds out it is slapstick, but she perseveres. Eventually she is discovered by a large studio and she and Billy part ways as she begins to take on dramatic roles. Soon the new-found fame goes to her head, and she is about to lose her public and gain a royal title when she decides to marry her new leading man, whom she doesn't really love, unless fate somehow intervenes.

One of the things MGM frequently does in its late silent-era films and in its early sound-era films is feature shots of how film-making was done at MGM circa 1930. This film is one of those, as we get Charlie Chaplin trying to get Peggy's autograph, an abundance of cameos of MGM players during that era including director King Vidor himself, and even a cameo of Marion Davies as Peggy seeing Marion Davies as Marion Davies arriving at work on the lot. Peggy grimaces and mentions that she doesn't care for her. Truly a delight from start to finish, this is a silent that is definitely worth your while. This is one of the films that I also recommend you use to introduce people to the art of silent cinema as it is very accessible.@@@1 -This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.

If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.@@@0 -`Stanley and Iris' is a heart warming film about two people who find each other and help one another overcome their problems in life. Stanley's life is difficult, because he never learned to read or write. Iris is a widower with two teenage children working in a bakery where she meets Stanley. She decides to teach Stanley how to read at her home in her spare time. Over time they become romantically involved. After Stanley learns to read, he goes off to a good job in Chicago, only to return to Iris and ask her to marry him.

It's a really good film without nudity, violence, or profanity, that which is rare in today's films. A good film all round.

@@@1 -This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.

The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.@@@0 +Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.

In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).

Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.

What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.

In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.

All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.

On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.

The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised.@@@1 +A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.

It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.

She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.

Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).

The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.

People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).

In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?@@@0 +Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).@@@1 +Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"@@@0 +After Garbo's introduction to sound in Clarence Brown's "Anna Christie", Jacques Feyder made a German version of the movie where all of the cast, except for Garbo, were different. While the American version is still more available in the USA and most of the American viewers have primarily seen this version, the Germna "Anna Christie" is more likely to be viewed in Europe. As I have seen both films, I feel the right to compare the two closely-knit productions. Is Jacques Feyder's film different? Is it better than Clarence Brown's?

In this analysis, I would like to focus first on what the both movies have in common. They have identical sets, very similar scripts and the same chronologically presented scenes. Here, you also find the story of the young woman who comes back to her father after years of absence and is trying to start a new life. Here, you also have the humorous, though a bit shorter, sequence in the amusement park. However, when emphasizing Garbo herself, I address the first difference. She does not appear to cause such a curiosity while talking. The viewer concentrates more on her acting than on the way she speaks, which occurred, most probably, to 1931 viewers. Garbo was very good in American film and she is also very good here. Yet, to me, she seems even more genuine in the German version. It is noticeable that Garbo does not focus on the way she says the words that much (the effort that was artificially created by the sensation: GARBO TALKS!). Her German is not very well pronounced; yet no one cares: everything is perfectly understood. Therefore, I can easily say the same I did in my American version comment: Skaal Greta Garbo!

Yet, the film differs in one very important issue: the rest of the cast. Here comes the question: which portrayal seems more captivating, which one is better for sure? The differences are filled with varieties. Salka Viertel (or Salka Steuerman), Garbo's lifelong friend, does not do the equally great job as Marie Dressler in the role of Marthy Owens. She is not bad, she is different, sometimes overacts (from today's perspective) but is no longer that genuine in the role as Marie Dressler who still amuses us and whose moments have absolutely stood a test of time. Some people even claim that Dressler was better than Garbo in the film and that opinion, though appears to be questionable of course, carries some truth. Theo Shall is more sympathetic as Matt than Charles Bickford but when applied to him, this is not the matter of performance so much as the mater of looks.

Who shines in the German "Anna Christie", who is really worth greatest attention is Hans Junkermann in the role of Chris Christopherson, Anna's father. George F. Marion vs Hans Junkermann is like a day vs night difference. Junkermann portrays a real alcohol addict, a man with hopes, with fears, who overdoes the care of his daughter. The scene of Anna's first meeting with her father is truly magnificent, the opening moment of Chris' conversation with Marthy is memorable particularly thanks to his facial expressions and a flawless performance. Junkermann is the Chris whom you like, who you sometimes laugh at, whom you sympathize with, who leaves a picture of a calm alcoholic sailor in your mind. Great!

If you have seen the American "Anna Christie" and have a chance to get the German version, I would highly recommend to you this movie because it's a slightly different look at the story, a nice and accurate way to compare, a fine enrichment to Clarence Brown's movie and, foremost, a wonderful chance to discover a marvel of performance: Hans Junkermann's. Skaal or Prost, Hans Junkermann!@@@1 +"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.@@@0 +Filmed by MGM on the same sets as the English version, but in German, Garbo's second portrayal of "Anna Christie" benefited from practice and her apparent ease with German dialog. Garbo appears more relaxed and natural under Jacques Feyder's direction than under Clarence Brown's, and her silent movie mannerisms have all but disappeared, which made her transition to sound complete. The strength she brought to the character remains here, although it has been softened, and Garbo reveals more of Anna's vulnerability. The entire cast, with the exception of Garbo, is different from the previous version of the film, and Garbo benefits from not having to compete with Marie Dressler, who stole every scene she was in during the English-language version. In Feyder's film, Garbo holds the center of attention throughout, although the three supporting players, particularly the father, gave excellent performances.

Feyder's direction was more assured than Clarence Brown's, and his use of the camera and editing techniques did not seem as constrained by the new sound process as did those of Brown. The film moves with more fluidity than the English language adaptation, and the static nature of the first film has been replaced with a flow that maintains viewer interest. Even William Daniels cinematography seems improved over his filming of the Brown version. He captured Garbo's luminescence and the atmospherics of the docks with style. Also, the screenplay adaptation for the European audience made Anna's profession quite clear from the start, and the explicitness clarifies for viewers who were unfamiliar with the play as to what was only implied in the Brown filming. However, the film was made before the Production Code was introduced, which made the censorship puzzling.

Garbo's Oscar nomination for "Anna Christie" was always somewhat mystifying, and I suspected that the nod was given more in recognition of her relatively smooth transition to sound films than for her performance. However, some of the Academy voters may have seen the German-language version of the film, and they realized, as will contemporary viewers, that her "Anna Christie" under Feyder's direction was definitely Oscar worthy.@@@1 +Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.

A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.@@@0 +I waited ages before seeing this as all the reviews I read of this said it was horrible! i rented it expecting the worst, and while it is hardly the best sandler film out there, there are much worse! Sandler frequently talks to the camera and the film does not take itself seriously, but that is all part of the fun! A great way to waste an afternoon, and you might even find yourself laughing once a twice! A good film, well worth renting!@@@1 +Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well.@@@0 +I had started to lose my faith in films of recent being inundated with the typical Genre Hollywood film. Story lines fail, and camera work is merely copied from the last film of similiar taste. But, then I saw Zentropa (Europa) and my faith was renewed. Not only is the metaphorical storyline enthralling but the use of color and black and white is visually stimulating. The narrator (Max Von Sydow) takes you through a spellbounding journey every step of the way and engrosses you into Europa 1945. We have all seen death put on screen in a hundred thousand ways but the beauty of this film is how it takes you through every slow-moving moment that leads you to death. Unlike many films it doesn't cut after one second of showing (for example) a knife but forces you to watch the devastating yet sensuous beauty of a man's final moments. I think we can all take something different away from what this movie is trying to say but it is definitely worth taking the time to find out what it all really means. I would love to talk more in depth about the film for any one who wishes to send me an email. Enjoy it!@@@1 +I would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash! There are films that are bad, but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you! The sex sequences, so shocking in its day, couldn't even arouse a rabbit. The so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night Marxism. The film is self-consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. The photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. Some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. Even the sound is bad! And some people call this art?

@@@0 +This version of Anna Christie is in German. Greta Garbo again plays Anna Christie, but all of the other characters have different actors from the English version. Both were filmed back to back because Garbo had such a following in Germany. Garbo herself supposedly favored her Anna Christie in this version over the English version. It's a good tale and a must-see for Garbo fans.@@@1 +There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.@@@0 +It's sort of crazy, but I taped from TCM both, this german version of MGM's "Anna Christie", and the english one...but I got to see this one first, 'cos I'd heard that many people thought it was better than the english version.

Without having seen the other one, I cannot compare them, but anyway this is an excellent early talkie, with a straight-from-the-heart performance by Garbo. She looks very beautiful in this film, her face shines throughout, especially when Cameraman William Daniels, gets those gorgeous close-ups of her.

The atmosphere of the film seems different from the regular MGM stuff made on that era, it looks very similar to french or german expressionistic films from the thirties, well it was directed by a great french director, Monsieur Jacques Feyder, who had directed Garbo in 1929 in "The Kiss".

Theo Shall is excellent and gives an absolutelly believable performance as Anna's sweetheart, the hard-boiled, tough, sailor, who's just a kid in man's body. Also Hans Junkermann gives a very fine performance, as Anna's alcoholic father and Salka Viertel too, as a good-hearted old cheap floozie.

In all quite an experience, because it's the only film were you can listen to Garbo speak in a foreign language...'cos all the other films she did in either Sweden or Germany, were during the Silent Era.

Serious Flick.@@@1 +Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?@@@0 +Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his "collecting trip" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.

This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.

The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.

Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre.@@@1 +An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?

Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).

The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.

His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.

After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.

None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.

Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).@@@0 +I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10@@@1 +This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody.

Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter.

Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.@@@0 +this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s.@@@1 +I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!@@@0 +Wasn't quite sure what to expect with this one, outside of the uniform positive reviews I've read. Turns out, I could have never imagined this movie, because it's very close to "The Bride with White Hair" in being operatic and dealing with the fantastic. This walks a fine line between being a farce, a comedy, and just plain good old fashion ghost story telling. There's nothing scary about it, that's not the theme, it's really mostly a love story dealing with a bumbling guy who encounters a beautiful ghost, who is in a lot of trouble with other ghosts. So the main theme is the guy trying to save the beautiful ghost. This also takes place in ancient China, with wild outlandish Kung Fu exhibitions, and a trip to hell (more or less). Some of the stop-action ghosts are pretty cool, and the visual effects are top rate all the way. I could watch this genre of Chinese movies all day, because they are highly entertaining, great visuals, and pretty much tongue-in-cheek. And I'm looking forward to watching the first sequel of this movie also. Highly recommended.@@@1 +I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.@@@0 +A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.

The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.

Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seen—a sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish.@@@1 +This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.

I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.

If only I could get my 90 minutes back...@@@0 +If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!@@@1 +When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage@@@0 +There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see.@@@1 +Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.@@@0 +A mix of comedy, romance, music(?!), action and horror. A knockout. This is one of the reasons people rave about Hong Kong cinema. If you're looking for something totally original, look no further. Entertainment at it's peak.@@@1 +This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.@@@0 +after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.

the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.

this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100@@@1 +Words can't describe how utterly stupid this story (and therefore bad this movie) is! Basinger, Del Toro ... what were you thinking ?? So there's a mall and its parking space is totally full. Basinger's character goes in to buy a cup of tea and some packaging paper.

When she comes out, the whole place is so empty, that nobody hears two gunshots fired nearby ?? Even though she lives there, when she drives away from the baddies, she goes to the most remote and godforsaken place possible instead of the nearest police station or at least a crowded place ?? COME ON !!! I won't even go into the infamous red toolbox, since other people have done that before. Let alone how she kills the moronic thugs one by one.

This is so stupid, without the least bit of logic, I can only warn you watching it, it's a TOTAL waste of time, honestly !!@@@0 +Just read the original story which is written by Pu in 18th century. Strikingly, the movie despict the original spirit very well, though the plot was modified tremendously. The film language, the rhythm, the special effect are all from hollywood, but still there is a chinese core. It is amazing how Hark Tsui managed to combine them together. The result is pure beauty.@@@1 +Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.@@@0 +"Chinese Ghost Story" is one of the most amazing Hong Kong films I have ever seen.It's a brilliant mix of fantasy,comedy,romance,horror and martial arts.The film has some wonderful visuals and amazing fights.I love especially the fight scene between Wu Ma and the tree demon tongue.Truly original and refreshing film and another Embalmer's fine recommendation.@@@1 +I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...

I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.

Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.

Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....@@@0 +Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means "Dawn please never comes" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow.@@@1 +For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of "The Great Escape," which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in "Gomer Pyle" and "Hogan's Heros." Then a second wave triggered by "Catch 22" and "MASH," both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the "Phil Silvers Show," about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from "Mister Roberts." A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom.

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. "Stripes" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some "Dirty Dozen." And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.@@@0 +For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it.@@@1 +This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.@@@0 +Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.

The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.

The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.

Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.

On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.

Since its release, "A Chinese Ghost Story" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10.

@@@1 +Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.

Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").

One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.

So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.

Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.

Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.

So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!@@@0 +There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.

It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.

I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection.@@@1 +OK I'm not an American, but in my humble Scottish opinion Steve Martin is not, never has been, and never will be a funny man as long as our posteriors point in a southerly direction. Phil Silvers as Sergeant Bilko was a funny man, no doubt due to the skilled writers and directors and all the other talented team working characters in the series who contributed perfectly to one of the funniest and dateless situation comedies America has ever produced. How anyone could have the audacity to even attempt to replicate the Phil Silvers character is beyond me. To compound things the exercise was repeated in Martin's unfunny attempt to be Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau, another abortive attempt, in my opinion, to rekindle a demonstrably unfunny career. Some of your contributers say 'Steve Martin puts his own stamp on the character', to that I would say 'balderdash' , his portrayals will be long forgotten when those of Silvers and Sellars will be treasured for generations to come@@@0 +Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.

To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.

Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10@@@1 +Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.@@@0 +A masterpiece of comedy, a masterpiece of horror, a masterpiece of romance, if there is anything negative to say about A Chinese Ghost Story, it might be that the special effects looked dated in comparison to modern technology. The film has a simple premise: a poor debt collector has to stay in a secluded area while trying to collect a debt. Of course, it happens to be haunted as well.

What I wasn't expecting the first time I saw this film is that it's one of the most touching love stories I've ever seen; that is without losing any of the slapstick comedy that will have you in stitches. Unlike some films of Asian cinema, A Chinese Ghost Story isn't hard to swallow for those that aren't versed in Chinese culture. Indeed, it plays on timeless, cultureless themes of the paranormal and romance.

Think Evil Dead 2, if they had thrown a wonderful love story into the mix. This film is for real, despite being overlooked by many. It's absolutely among the best I've ever seen. It's ability to combine the best aspects of multiple genres, and cross cultural boundaries in order to appeal to humanity everywhere, is nothing short of fantastic. Highly recommended, 10/10.@@@1 +I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be@@@0 +Though I'm not the biggest fan of wirework based martial arts films, when a film goes straight for fantasy rather than fighting I get a lot more fun out of it and this film is one of the best in terms of fantastical plotting and crazy flying shenanigans. Ching Siu Tung has crafted here an enchanting treat with fine performance and much ethereal beauty. The great, tragic Leslie Cheung plays a tax collector hero who stays the night in a haunted temple and gets involved with a stunning fox spirit and a wacky Taoist. Cheungs performance is filled with naive but dignified charm and Wu Ma is pleasingly off the wall as the Taoist monk, who shows off some swordplay and even gets a musical number. Perhaps best off all is Joey Wang as the fox spirit, truly a delight to behold with every movement and gesture entrancingly seductive. The film takes in elements of fantasy, horror, comedy and romance, all stirred together into a constantly entertaining package. Ching Siu Tung, directing and handling the choreography gives some neat wirework thrills, and fills the film with mists, shadows and eerily enthralling benighted forest colours, giving every forest scene a wonderfully bewitching atmosphere. Also notable are the elaborate hair stylings and gorgeous flowing garments of the female characters, with, if I'm not mistaken, Joey Wang sporting hair done up like fox ears at times, a marvellous touch. Though the film features relatively little action and some perhaps ill advised cheesy pop songs at times, this is a beautiful piece of entertainment, with swell characters and plotting, even the odd neat character arc, a near constant supply of visual treats and copious dreamy atmosphere. An ethereal treasure, highly recommended.@@@1 +I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.@@@0 +First things first, the female lead is too gorgeous to be missed. Now actress Wang Zu Xian, the one who played Xiao Qian in the movie, is 42 years old and well aged. It's always good to review these glorious times when seeing old-school HongKong productions like this.

The movie is one of the most influential titles made in 1980s. The art set decoration and other aesthetic facets are all mesmerizing. More fantastically the movie had a total black humorous undertone in it. It feels like a horror movie but ultimately it's not scaring, but only fun.

I had the experience of translating the second script of "A Chinese Ghotst Story", and I thought that script was a decent write. However when I saw the movie, I firstly was disappointed in seeing the movie different from the script, like in a smaller scale and involving more comic roles. However, it turned out to be better executed in terms of being entertaining.

If you have seen the Lord of the Rings, you will notice the similarities in this movie to LOTR. The climax is like a mirror of Miranda Otto fighting with the Ring Witch. It's definitely a laugh-out-loud. Bravo!@@@1 +I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?@@@0 +I like the good and evil battle. I liked Eddie in this movie better than any movie he has ever done. He wasn't The smart, cocky, know it all he usually plays. He shows heart and a more humble humor. The fact that it shows there are stranger things in Heaven and on earth than we can think of gives me hope.@@@1 +Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks – Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.

A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")@@@0 +Sinnui yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her@@@1 +No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!

Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.@@@0 +I saw this movie in my childhood. And after 10 years I did not remember anything about this movie but I found out it I also don't know how I was able to find out this movie. Its my life. My all times favorite movie. My words will fall short of true meaning what I have inside for this movie. I follow this movie. It's a brilliant mix of fantasy, comedy, romance, horror, erotic, scary and martial arts. The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm. It's a masterpiece of Hong Kong Cinema.

Sinnui Yauman, is without a doubt one of the best ghost stories ever made into film. Written by Songling Pu and directed by Siu-Tung Ching, A Chinese Ghost Story has it all. Ling Choi Sin played by Leslie Cheung is a young man down on his luck who goes in search of a monastery for lodging, deep in the woods, a place the villagers seem very afraid to go near. The trek alone is perilous with wolves, and a crazy taoist monk lives at the temple.

Ling Choi Sin meets Tsing, a beautiful and mysterious young girl who also lives nearby in a deserted temple. She is forced to seduce men for her evil mistress, but when she meets innocent Ling Choi Sin they fall in love.

Ling Choi Sin is sort of a bumbling fool but his heart is in the right place, while Tsing tries to protect him from the other spirits in the woods, he tries to protect her from the monk who is trying to kill the spirits in the woods. There's great martial arts, even a monk that breaks out into drunken song as he performs ritual taoist sword forms. The movie does a lot of traditional old martial art films acrobatics, with magic and flying through the air, leaping from tree to tree, with elegant long gowns and scarves, but the movie genuinely flows, and everything is effective.

Tsing is to be married to a evil tree monster, which cant be good, and we feel her plight in her home where we meet her sisters and stepmother who is truly not nice.

In the end they must fight a tree witch with a deadly tongue, and go with Yin deep into the heart of hell to fight a thousand year old evil to save their souls, and bring Ling's ashes back to her home for a proper burial so she may have a chance at reincarnation.

A beautiful story that truly pays attention to details. One is touched in many ways by this movie, you'll laugh, cry, and just have fun with the great martial arts and cinematography. And though at the end, Yin and Ling Choi Sin ride off into the morning sun under a enchanting rainbow, we never know if Tsing was afforded a reincarnation, but we do know her.@@@1 +Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.@@@0 +This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.@@@1 +As seems to be the general gist of these comments, the film has some stunning animation (I watched it on blu-ray) but it really falls short of any real depth.

Firstly the characters are all pretty dull. I got a hint of a kind of Laputa situation between Agito, Toola and the main antagonist Shunack. However maybe my mind wanderd and this was wishful thinking (Laputa being my favourite animé, original Engilsh dub). The characters are not really lovable either and as mentioned in another post they fall in love exceptionally quickly, leaving poor old Minka jealous and rejected (she loves Agito, who seems oblivious of this). However she promptly seems to forgive Toola at the end with no explanation for the change of heart other than it makes the ending a little bit more "happy".

There is also a serious lack of explanation. Like who are the druids really? Are they people? and who are the weird women/girls who seem to hang out with them and run the forest? There is nothing explaining why they are there and how they can give regular humans superpowers. The plants coming from the moon still does not fill in the blanks about this. It is almost like a weird version of The Day of the Triffids.

And who does call Toola? why bother with this if it wont be explained?

I really wanted to like this film but I found the plot no where near as deep as a film like Ghost in the Shell or having any real character like those of Miyazaki. I do not resent watching it but I do sort of wish I hadn't bought it. My advice? Give it a go if you have a couple of hours to spare, but borrow it, or buy it cheap! Perhaps if your new to animé films and don't have much to go by you will enjoy it. It certainly is visually pleasing.@@@0 +This is the best Chinese movie I have ever seen, and, in my opinion, a lot better than Hero or Chrouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The movie is a unique combination of several genres: It's a beautiful love story, action movie, comedy and horror at the same time. And the most amazing thing is that it really succeeds in all of this!

This movie definitely makes it to my top 5, and should be enjoyable to every movie lover. The action sequences do have the traditional unrealistic jumping and even flying, but the way it's shot differs from the style of Hero a lot and the flying always looks great and usually even makes sense (ghosts can fly)

See this movie, you won't regret it. 10/10@@@1 +As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...@@@0 +This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.

Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10.@@@1 +This was a rip-off of the same garbage we had to watch Bob Saget host during the half-hour before this. Dave Coulier only thought he was funny and it was pretty much the same show as America's Funniest Home Videos except with a hosts who have a combined IQ of three. Tawny Kitaen must've really needed the money and Coulier had to go to the recycle bin for his jokes. It was torture enough having to see him imitate Popeye and other washed up cartoon starts on Full House. That one dude who played all of the practical jokes on everyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a Grade A wedgie. Coulier must've needed to money to please Alannis Morisette while they were dating.@@@0 +I first saw this film when it was transmitted around 1988 by the BBC when I was working on UK's 2000AD. My pal Steve Parkhouse recorded it on VHS and sent it to me. Up till this point, I'd really only seen the Shaw Bros kung fu movies, with their harsh lighting (so audience could see the moves clearly), so it was a revelation to me to see something that looked like it had been lit by Ridley Scott coming out of Hong Kong. This was also my first exposure to the movies of Tsui Hark (pronounced, apparently, "Choy Huk").

Yet for all the smoky, back-lit exteriors and ambitious special effects (Stop-motion? In a Hong Kong Movie?) at the heart of Chinese GHOST STORY lies a simple and moving love story, made all the more real by the outstanding acting talent of Leslie Cheung (what a tragic, tragic waste of a life!) and the beauty and elegance of Joey Wong. Granted Joey is gorgeous, but it's her balletic hand gestures that give her character an unattainable eroticism that's hard to analyse. And though Joey is now almost 20 years older (gawd, which of us isn't?) this will always be the enduring image of that actress.

Some reviewers here have said that the film is simplistic and lacks any surprises, but they're missing the fact that this movie was based on a famous Chinese story written by Pu Songling around 1700! That's a bit like complaining that Romeo and Juliet has a predictable ending and just copies WEST SIDE STORY. (Just wanted to get that off my chest!)

For me, Chinese GHOST STORY is the quintessential romantic tale. It has high tragedy, because we know that Chio Sin and Sin Seen can never be together. It's about becoming mature, for none of us can mature until we've experienced great loss. It's about sacrifice, for sacrifice is an essential component of True Love. And the comedy stylings of Wu Ma don't hurt a bit, either.

Enjoy Chinese GHOST STORY by trying not to view it through a filter of Western culture and you'll get on with it just fine.@@@1 +I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!@@@0 +I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!@@@1 +A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.

Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.

Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.

I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.@@@0 +By 1987 Hong Kong had given the world such films as Sammo Hung's `Encounters of the Spooky Kind' Chow Yun Fat in John Woo's iconic `A Better Tomorrow', `Zu Warriors' and the classic `Mr Vampire'. Jackie Chan was having international success on video, but it was with `A Chinese Ghost Story' that HK cinema had its first real crossover theatrical hit in the West for many years.

Western filmgoers had never seen anything like it. It was a film that took various ingredients that HK cinema had used for years (flying swordsman, wildly choreographed martial arts and the supernatural) and blended them to create a film that was unique in its look, feel and execution. Forget the poor and unnecessary sequels it spawned, this is the original and best.

Director Siu-Tung Ching (still best known as an Action Choreographer on such films as Woo's `A Better Tomorrow 2'/'The Killer') has, under the watchful eye of legendary Producer Tsui Hark, created a masterpiece of Fantasy/Horror cinema. And with such an expert crew at his disposal (no less than 6 Martial Arts Coordinators) the chances of the film being anything but wonderful would be unthinkable.

The editing by the amazingly prolific David Wu (who wrote/directed `The Bride With White Hair 2' and edited such classic titles as `A Better Tomorrow 1/2/3', `Hardboiled' and the cult hit `The Club') is quite simply a work of genius. His crafting of the perfectly choreographed high flying, tree climbing sword fights makes them some of the best HK cinema has ever created. Fast moving, outlandish but never confusing they are, even today, the pinnacle of their art.

The crew of cinematographers have also done miracles. This is a film where every shot is an expertly crafted painting. Where wonderful blue tinged night sequences, shrouded in an ever-present ghostly fog, are the breathtaking platform for our story to unfold. It's a film where everything is used to weave a dreamlike beauty. Even the silken robes and dresses worn by Hsiao Tsing become living parts of the movie, whether in romantic sequences or battle scenes the ever present silk flows across the screen. Even a simple scene where Hsiao Tsing changes robes is turned into a thing of fluttering beauty as every skill on the set combines to create a most memorable scene from such a simple act. The sets are also amazing, giving an other worldly sense to the forests, and the temple and harshness to the scorched, flag filled wasteland of hell for the amazing finale. The production design by Zhongwen Xi deserves the highest praise.

Another major factor to the films success is the music by Romeo Diaz and James Wong. Hong Kong films have given us some fantastic music and songs that have added so much to the success of a sequence, but on `A Chinese Ghost Story' the music is, quite simply, vital. From the opening song onwards the music becomes as important as the characters.

The score is a perfect mixture of modern and traditional instruments. Drums, bells and guitars pound away over the action sequences to great effect, but it's in the slower, achingly romantic pieces that it comes into it's own. Here; flutes, strings and female choral effects create what are possibly the finest pieces of music heard in an HK film. Add to this the female vocal, stunningly beautiful song that plays over Tsau-shen's and Hsiao Tsing's love making, (nothing is ever seen, but the effect is wonderful. This is lovingly innocent movie romance) and you have a shining example of the power a film's music can have.

And we of course have the acting talent. Leslie Cheung (`A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2' and a very popular singer) is outstanding as the innocent tax collector. His work in the (thankfully mild) comic sequences is never over the top and his scenes with Joey Wang are played with just the right amount of passion and innocence.

Joey Wang (who would later be mostly relegated to support roles in films like the Chow Yun Fat/Andy Lau classic "God of Gamblers") has never looked more radiant than how she does here. She is the epitome of ethereal beauty. Her portrayal of the tragic Hsiao Tsing is stunning. She shows her characters sadness at what she has become and what she is made to do, but also gives off a subtle eroticism in the scenes where she is luring the men to their gruesome deaths. Veteran actor Wu Ma (`Mr. Vampire', `Swordsman') is great fun as the wise, brave, but ever so grumpy, Yen. He treads a fine line between the eccentric and the annoying with practised ease. And what so easily could have been a character that could have harmed the film is actually wonderfully entertaining and memorable.

But what about the monsters and beasties?, I hear you cry. Well they range from the rather crude but fun stop motion/animatronic zombies that inhabit the temple (resulting in a great running gag with constantly thwarted attempts to munch on the amusingly unsuspecting Tsau-shen), to the rather cheesy but surprisingly effective Lord Black. Complete with an arsenal of vicious flying heads, and quite outstanding wire work. Most of which has, to this day, never been topped.

But the most outstanding effect and creation is the tree spirit's killer tongue. We first encounter this thing with an `Evil Dead' style rushing camera effect as it powers down its victims throats to deliver a lethal French kiss that turns the victims into zombiefied husks. But later it's shown in all its crazy glory. It can grow so big and long that it shoots through the forest after prey, rips apart trees, wraps itself around buildings and coils it's slimy length around people before picking them up and throwing them against tree trunks!! It can even split open to reveal a fang filled mouth! It's an outrageous idea that given the deeply romantic main plot shouldn't work. But it does, to fantastic and unforgettable effect.

So what all this adds up to is a classic example of Hong Kong movie making. A true team effort that has given us a truly ground breaking movie. It's a film packed with wit, invention, action, monsters, martial arts, ghosts, fantastic ideas, lush visuals, beautiful music, and most important to it's enduring charm, one of cinemas most moving romances.@@@1 +A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it!@@@0 +"Bread" very sharply skewers the conventions of horror movies in general and "Night of the Living Dead" in specific and is constantly inventive. The production values are a little rough at times (it's a student film, after all), but it never loses sight of its goal to entertain. Hey -- George Romero liked it enough to include it on the remastered "Dead" video tape, laserdisc and DVD... that should tell you something.@@@1 +It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?@@@0 +Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???

(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)@@@1 +Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.

The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.

Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.

And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.

The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.

**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.

I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.@@@0 +Very funny film. Classic film funny Eddie Murphy of the 80s. I saw when I was a child and I have a good memory. The classic irony of Murphy does not fail, the film is funny, well done. Murphy in the'80s made many films of action that represented for him a way to joke about everything that is dangerous. The result can only be appreciated by some but ii film from 1986 up to now have changed. The atmosphere for a movie of that time is good and the special effects are good for a film of the period. A nice movie to see and enjoy appreciating the taste of ironic Murphy, an actor who has recently disappeared. The final part is anthologies, the likable actor who plays the part of the Tibetan Monk. That's it.@@@1 +It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this "movie." No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.

The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.

**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream??

**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.

(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).

**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.

**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.

**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.

**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder?@@@0 +I just viewed this great good-natured parody of Night of the Living Dead, and I have to say it was so awful and so corny it was excellent. This movie incorporated all the antics and scenery shots that the original had including the cemetery, the supposable abandoned house, the basement and the front lawn. What I especially love about this movie is the comical use of bread and all the common household enemies bread has a grudge against. C'mon, we know that toasters, toaster ovens and zip-locks have done bread in a dozen times and now we must call for their help in order to defeat the reanimated bread. Aside from the cheap acting and voice-overs, this short horror film is my personal favorite parody of Night of the Living Dead, even better than Night of the Living Dead of 1990.

I think what makes this movie worth watching is how the writers and directors utilized all the dialogue from the original movie and revolved it around bread, including how the bread became reanimated and to avoid leftovers because they are especially dangerous. Another great reason why I love this movie is that, there is no exception as to what bread is evil, bagels are evil and even communions are evil, which is demonstrated by a hilarious scene involving a newscaster and a rather monotone priest. I think that the actors are especially humorous performing the deed of being viscously attacked by slices of bread (i.e. the car scene). I think the end is very worth sticking around.

Even though this is a short and that "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" is debatably another great parody, it's still recommend as a great horror parody done by, what seems to be college filmmakers. I highly recommend this movie to anybody who is able to make fun of Night of the Living Dead and still have respect for the filmmakers. I would also like to recommend this movie to anybody who loves D-movies and horror parody's, it's just a wonderful little short horror film that's fun to watch and learn.@@@1 +Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.

This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre.@@@0 +Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf.@@@1 +One of the those "coming of age" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.@@@0 +Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.

Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.

Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.

As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.

I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it.@@@1 +The film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.

I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.

Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10@@@0 +Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir.@@@1 +Un-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!@@@0 +Does anyone happen to know where this film was shot? The aviation scene on the cliff is beautiful. It appears to be England. However, Ivy's apartment building certainly looks like the Brill Building, with its fascinating elevators.

Charles Mendl is listed as playing "Sir Charles Gage". Maybe I blinked, but I never saw him. Perhaps he was the husband's lawyer, but, again, I don't recall that character being in the film, other than being mentioned as having made a phone call. Perhaps he was in the aviation scene? Or the ballroom scene? Did anyone spot him?

Herbert Marshall was 57 years old when he shot this film.@@@1 +The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd.

Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.

For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.

This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.@@@0 +Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling "feet foremost through the floor into an empty space."@@@1 +Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.

I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.

First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.@@@0 +An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can!@@@1 +I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight@@@0 +Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.@@@1 +Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.@@@0 +Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film.@@@1 +I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.

In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.

I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.@@@0 +Loved Joan. Great performance. What isn't she good in. I watched this film and then Jane Eyre right after... she just keeps getting better. My heart was racing. Great old movie drama. Just what i want from a classic movie. Facial expressions are worth the whole film. I'm glad i have it on video. Don't know what more you need in a film. Beautiful woman....wealth..... greed.....murder....detectives......a trial.....

The costumes are very nice. Makes me wonder what the budget was for this movie? Wish they still made films like this. Whenever they try they just seem to make a cheesy movie. Films in black and white still hold a certain mystery.@@@1 +This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)@@@0 +A strange role for Eddie Murphy to take at the height of his career. While there is a lot of the "Eddie Murphy character," he plays a truly decent person. The rest of the cast is good, particularly the lovely Charlotte Lewis. Her character's beauty and serenity held the tone of the film from getting to be too much Murphy.@@@1 +Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.

I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.

I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.@@@0 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log index 99f0bf8..9f38882 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.4642857015132904,0.6792230606079102,0.6666666865348816,0.6096198558807373 -1,0.5,0.6412187814712524,0.8333333134651184,0.563424289226532 -2,0.7857142686843872,0.6088717579841614,0.8333333134651184,0.5253434777259827 -3,0.9285714030265808,0.5886109471321106,0.8333333134651184,0.48672178387641907 -4,0.8571428656578064,0.5817418694496155,0.8333333134651184,0.45663216710090637 -5,0.8571428656578064,0.5364190340042114,0.8333333134651184,0.42731937766075134 -6,0.9285714030265808,0.48714160919189453,0.8333333134651184,0.4024992883205414 -7,0.9285714030265808,0.4567449688911438,1.0,0.37514522671699524 -8,0.9285714030265808,0.44340378046035767,1.0,0.35713621973991394 -9,0.8571428656578064,0.4458238184452057,1.0,0.3315823972225189 -10,0.9285714030265808,0.449875146150589,1.0,0.3113362491130829 -11,1.0,0.38302087783813477,1.0,0.2919938862323761 -12,1.0,0.38347628712654114,1.0,0.2792128324508667 -13,1.0,0.3540806472301483,1.0,0.25947317481040955 -14,1.0,0.3425617814064026,1.0,0.24656645953655243 -15,1.0,0.3528338074684143,1.0,0.23231357336044312 -16,1.0,0.3233729302883148,1.0,0.2184128612279892 -17,0.9285714030265808,0.3172203600406647,1.0,0.21035194396972656 -18,1.0,0.30734875798225403,1.0,0.1992073506116867 -19,1.0,0.34384894371032715,1.0,0.1874915510416031 -20,1.0,0.3224475383758545,1.0,0.17471478879451752 -21,1.0,0.33253055810928345,1.0,0.16188496351242065 -22,0.8571428656578064,0.34294095635414124,1.0,0.1523512601852417 -23,1.0,0.22650936245918274,1.0,0.14123143255710602 -24,1.0,0.2847939133644104,1.0,0.13328713178634644 -25,1.0,0.2755507528781891,1.0,0.12497973442077637 -26,1.0,0.2393340766429901,1.0,0.1146194115281105 -27,1.0,0.22902631759643555,1.0,0.1063181459903717 -28,1.0,0.20621047914028168,1.0,0.09908604621887207 -29,1.0,0.1637730598449707,1.0,0.0896223783493042 -30,1.0,0.22172985970973969,1.0,0.08345893770456314 -31,1.0,0.18266209959983826,1.0,0.07732546329498291 -32,1.0,0.20312443375587463,1.0,0.07037097960710526 -33,1.0,0.1952698528766632,1.0,0.06439299136400223 -34,1.0,0.1661689579486847,1.0,0.05866100266575813 -35,1.0,0.1293468475341797,1.0,0.05319370701909065 -36,1.0,0.12761685252189636,1.0,0.04840226098895073 -37,1.0,0.13534243404865265,1.0,0.04368432238698006 -38,1.0,0.10472504049539566,1.0,0.03999100252985954 -39,1.0,0.10156665742397308,1.0,0.03953782469034195 -40,1.0,0.06611065566539764,1.0,0.034549225121736526 -41,1.0,0.11937206983566284,1.0,0.03146066889166832 -42,1.0,0.08449331670999527,1.0,0.028750905767083168 -43,0.9285714030265808,0.1948096752166748,1.0,0.02824503928422928 -44,1.0,0.06794954836368561,1.0,0.02497704327106476 -45,1.0,0.10231692343950272,1.0,0.02204796113073826 -46,1.0,0.05297071486711502,1.0,0.020232560113072395 -47,1.0,0.1332472264766693,1.0,0.018161198124289513 -48,1.0,0.05353375896811485,1.0,0.015762722119688988 -49,1.0,0.09261306375265121,1.0,0.013646983541548252 -50,1.0,0.059548888355493546,1.0,0.011847533285617828 -51,1.0,0.037388067692518234,1.0,0.010533061809837818 -52,1.0,0.06763044744729996,1.0,0.009054075926542282 -53,1.0,0.08284955471754074,1.0,0.008107703179121017 -54,1.0,0.06747829169034958,1.0,0.007177268620580435 -55,0.9285714030265808,0.08553657680749893,1.0,0.006283285096287727 -56,1.0,0.054982010275125504,1.0,0.005711109843105078 -57,1.0,0.03681687265634537,1.0,0.0050214543007314205 -58,1.0,0.10272637754678726,1.0,0.004039508756250143 -59,1.0,0.05668019503355026,1.0,0.003748863935470581 -60,1.0,0.03377602621912956,1.0,0.0032328206580132246 -61,0.9285714030265808,0.20132838189601898,1.0,0.004037297796458006 -62,1.0,0.07303053140640259,1.0,0.0034265313297510147 -63,1.0,0.008613149635493755,1.0,0.003164242720231414 -64,1.0,0.03030652180314064,1.0,0.0027706585824489594 -65,1.0,0.07391674071550369,1.0,0.0023569732438772917 -66,1.0,0.017764264717698097,1.0,0.0021768652368336916 -67,1.0,0.01999245584011078,1.0,0.0019374536350369453 -68,1.0,0.010947911068797112,1.0,0.0017333856085315347 -69,1.0,0.021679235622286797,1.0,0.0014853022294119 -70,1.0,0.010195390321314335,1.0,0.0013332102680578828 -71,1.0,0.05377918481826782,1.0,0.0011198630090802908 -72,1.0,0.04395625740289688,1.0,0.0010299583664163947 -73,1.0,0.01704508066177368,1.0,0.0009283879189752042 -74,1.0,0.004332738928496838,1.0,0.0009010282810777426 -75,1.0,0.015189249999821186,1.0,0.0007826865767128766 -76,1.0,0.014771563932299614,1.0,0.0006546169170178473 -77,1.0,0.009147743694484234,1.0,0.0006026813643984497 -78,1.0,0.06463945657014847,1.0,0.0005768112023361027 -79,1.0,0.00270857778377831,1.0,0.0005505812005139887 -80,1.0,0.03120368905365467,1.0,0.00044740739394910634 -81,1.0,0.021427899599075317,1.0,0.0003573708236217499 -82,1.0,0.012145017273724079,1.0,0.0003663520619738847 -83,1.0,0.0026808774564415216,1.0,0.0003459217259660363 -84,1.0,0.02296203374862671,1.0,0.00027983958716504276 -85,1.0,0.03025786392390728,1.0,0.0002474878856446594 -86,1.0,0.007070980500429869,1.0,0.0002211435785284266 -87,1.0,0.011380069889128208,1.0,0.0001791441027307883 -88,1.0,0.011245413683354855,1.0,0.0001716185361146927 -89,1.0,0.0013216196093708277,1.0,0.0001640510599827394 -90,1.0,0.0013860611943528056,1.0,0.00015442096628248692 -91,1.0,0.0005560374702326953,1.0,0.00014996755635365844 -92,1.0,0.016720518469810486,1.0,0.0001207743989652954 -93,1.0,0.016007980331778526,1.0,0.0001104924303945154 -94,1.0,0.031309980899095535,1.0,0.00010186123108724132 -95,1.0,0.015189483761787415,1.0,8.642911416245624e-05 -96,1.0,0.0007729342905804515,1.0,8.657685248181224e-05 -97,1.0,0.01050588022917509,1.0,7.344785262830555e-05 -98,1.0,0.022285282611846924,1.0,6.972191476961598e-05 -99,1.0,0.031069546937942505,1.0,6.150809349492192e-05 +0,0.2142857164144516,0.7691696882247925,0.1666666716337204,0.6968860030174255 +1,0.5,0.6797966957092285,0.6666666865348816,0.6854147911071777 +2,0.5714285969734192,0.6564531922340393,0.6666666865348816,0.6657294631004333 +3,0.5,0.6584855914115906,0.6666666865348816,0.6467658877372742 +4,0.5714285969734192,0.663375735282898,0.6666666865348816,0.6340286135673523 +5,0.6428571343421936,0.6304769515991211,0.6666666865348816,0.622786283493042 +6,0.7857142686843872,0.6006123423576355,0.6666666865348816,0.6025535464286804 +7,0.7857142686843872,0.5502466559410095,0.8333333134651184,0.5809667706489563 +8,0.7857142686843872,0.6035996675491333,0.8333333134651184,0.5639434456825256 +9,0.8571428656578064,0.5463551878929138,0.8333333134651184,0.5465020537376404 +10,0.9285714030265808,0.5490833520889282,0.8333333134651184,0.5322120785713196 +11,0.8571428656578064,0.5239607691764832,0.8333333134651184,0.5174854397773743 +12,0.9285714030265808,0.4752539098262787,1.0,0.4925011694431305 +13,0.7857142686843872,0.5459045767784119,0.8333333134651184,0.4801720678806305 +14,0.9285714030265808,0.5176941156387329,1.0,0.4622505009174347 +15,0.8571428656578064,0.4919445812702179,1.0,0.43939587473869324 +16,0.9285714030265808,0.44554615020751953,1.0,0.420293927192688 +17,0.9285714030265808,0.3324262797832489,1.0,0.3973822295665741 +18,0.9285714030265808,0.4001629054546356,1.0,0.37898388504981995 +19,0.9285714030265808,0.35949036478996277,1.0,0.36181020736694336 +20,1.0,0.30874040722846985,1.0,0.3422410488128662 +21,0.7857142686843872,0.33006614446640015,1.0,0.31518450379371643 +22,1.0,0.29378166794776917,1.0,0.2865974009037018 +23,1.0,0.34466758370399475,1.0,0.2689237892627716 +24,1.0,0.2725095748901367,1.0,0.2401953488588333 +25,0.9285714030265808,0.3630825877189636,1.0,0.2305315136909485 +26,1.0,0.26639965176582336,1.0,0.20689429342746735 +27,0.9285714030265808,0.29201197624206543,1.0,0.1914723664522171 +28,0.9285714030265808,0.24518443644046783,1.0,0.1781657189130783 +29,0.8571428656578064,0.31285175681114197,1.0,0.16460610926151276 +30,0.9285714030265808,0.24582770466804504,1.0,0.1536044031381607 +31,1.0,0.18470223248004913,1.0,0.136222705245018 +32,0.9285714030265808,0.19852757453918457,1.0,0.12190407514572144 +33,1.0,0.1554633229970932,1.0,0.10891031473875046 +34,1.0,0.2202216535806656,1.0,0.09989767521619797 +35,1.0,0.13831260800361633,1.0,0.09166359156370163 +36,1.0,0.09167628735303879,1.0,0.08299549669027328 +37,1.0,0.21322284638881683,1.0,0.07344026118516922 +38,1.0,0.14946095645427704,1.0,0.06670180708169937 +39,1.0,0.09147430956363678,1.0,0.05854429304599762 +40,1.0,0.18412552773952484,1.0,0.05302606523036957 +41,1.0,0.09666352719068527,1.0,0.04770746827125549 +42,1.0,0.08450506627559662,1.0,0.042681824415922165 +43,1.0,0.08433519303798676,1.0,0.04134305939078331 +44,1.0,0.09391379356384277,1.0,0.03870026394724846 +45,1.0,0.0264675784856081,1.0,0.03586174547672272 +46,0.9285714030265808,0.15149198472499847,1.0,0.0326368510723114 +47,1.0,0.09731601178646088,1.0,0.02832973003387451 +48,1.0,0.1069759652018547,1.0,0.025143621489405632 +49,0.9285714030265808,0.19944767653942108,1.0,0.023518921807408333 +50,1.0,0.05166583135724068,1.0,0.021032018586993217 +51,0.9285714030265808,0.06062784790992737,1.0,0.020082516595721245 +52,1.0,0.09896988421678543,1.0,0.018223611637949944 +53,1.0,0.0497157908976078,1.0,0.016383590176701546 +54,1.0,0.04256517067551613,1.0,0.01497249398380518 +55,1.0,0.08501887321472168,1.0,0.013066637329757214 +56,1.0,0.09599677473306656,1.0,0.01155577227473259 +57,1.0,0.04380107298493385,1.0,0.010255347937345505 +58,1.0,0.030079873278737068,1.0,0.009291460737586021 +59,1.0,0.038285501301288605,1.0,0.007959555834531784 +60,1.0,0.042844269424676895,1.0,0.007039967458695173 +61,1.0,0.04712093994021416,1.0,0.006350230425596237 +62,1.0,0.03839700669050217,1.0,0.0056389435194432735 +63,1.0,0.09127455949783325,1.0,0.005245724692940712 +64,1.0,0.07462602108716965,1.0,0.004670026246458292 +65,1.0,0.07987456023693085,1.0,0.004217054229229689 +66,1.0,0.00984864216297865,1.0,0.00391608290374279 +67,1.0,0.04039726033806801,1.0,0.0032852578442543745 +68,1.0,0.012395094148814678,1.0,0.003060301998630166 +69,0.9285714030265808,0.05836820602416992,1.0,0.0030624258797615767 +70,1.0,0.02835427224636078,1.0,0.0026188790798187256 +71,1.0,0.005036982707679272,1.0,0.0024089941289275885 +72,1.0,0.05610128119587898,1.0,0.002091076457872987 +73,1.0,0.009501256048679352,1.0,0.0018907004268839955 +74,1.0,0.021054062992334366,1.0,0.0017037359066307545 +75,1.0,0.002968083368614316,1.0,0.0016149664297699928 +76,1.0,0.05051838606595993,1.0,0.0013479744084179401 +77,1.0,0.04591674730181694,1.0,0.0011579041602090001 +78,1.0,0.049976203590631485,1.0,0.0011313777649775147 +79,1.0,0.01984633132815361,1.0,0.001045572105795145 +80,1.0,0.001616889494471252,1.0,0.0010003907373175025 +81,1.0,0.02939969301223755,1.0,0.0007999413064680994 +82,1.0,0.00671177264302969,1.0,0.0007314736139960587 +83,1.0,0.02327582612633705,1.0,0.0006681616068817675 +84,1.0,0.05214524269104004,1.0,0.0005942556890659034 +85,1.0,0.04609372466802597,1.0,0.0005143682355992496 +86,1.0,0.04113013669848442,1.0,0.00041868467815220356 +87,1.0,0.009963960386812687,1.0,0.0003722121473401785 +88,1.0,0.004160521551966667,1.0,0.0003485812048893422 +89,1.0,0.0004058827762492001,1.0,0.0003419771383050829 +90,0.9285714030265808,0.07239186763763428,1.0,0.00031826001941226423 +91,1.0,0.011510806158185005,1.0,0.0002743580553214997 +92,1.0,0.0015767650911584496,1.0,0.00026458725915290415 +93,1.0,0.011715246364474297,1.0,0.00022785710461903363 +94,1.0,0.0006863604066893458,1.0,0.0002235666470369324 +95,1.0,0.00027620780747383833,1.0,0.00022077855828683823 +96,1.0,0.01380483340471983,1.0,0.00019453065760899335 +97,1.0,0.0018850478809326887,1.0,0.00017494319763500243 +98,1.0,0.027910854667425156,1.0,0.00015180674381554127 +99,1.0,0.0027512479573488235,1.0,0.0001376699801767245 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log index 28a0e03..6e3697b 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.47571428469249183,0.696406193801335,0.5,0.6925721128781637 -1,0.5128571430274419,0.6935797122546604,0.45333333015441896,0.6934390076001485 -2,0.48428571377481733,0.6940039777755738,0.5,0.6931048822402954 -3,0.49142857142857144,0.6954031419754029,0.45333333015441896,0.6933807945251464 -4,0.5199999986376082,0.6930621348108564,0.5,0.692881965637207 -5,0.48857142908232554,0.6923436532701764,0.5,0.6928311069806417 +0,0.4714285731315613,0.6987895965576172,0.5,0.6954065561294556 +1,0.5285714268684387,0.6884825825691223,0.5,0.697887122631073 +2,0.5428571701049805,0.7039175033569336,0.5,0.6961176991462708 +3,0.5142857432365417,0.695519745349884,0.5,0.6960023045539856 +4,0.5428571701049805,0.688764214515686,0.5,0.6971126794815063 +5,0.5285714268684387,0.6866439580917358,0.5,0.6961126327514648 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log index fc46e9d..954cce7 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log @@ -1,16 +1,45 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5150000020435879,0.695489206314087,0.5,0.698468812306722 -1,0.52,0.6925001045635768,0.5,0.698969014485677 -2,0.5114285700661796,0.6931481994901385,0.5,0.6969600407282511 -3,0.5314285704067775,0.6950978684425354,0.5,0.6980274335543315 -4,0.5357142850330898,0.6932967673029219,0.5,0.6973545463879903 -5,0.5242857159887041,0.6962866057668413,0.5,0.6968177127838134 -6,0.47285714524132866,0.6963821520124163,0.5,0.6975204094250997 -7,0.5028571452413286,0.6947748334067209,0.5,0.696363186041514 -8,0.5071428561210632,0.6948942419460842,0.5,0.696875057220459 -9,0.5142857129233224,0.6928549793788364,0.5,0.6943965832392375 -10,0.5171428550992693,0.6951644808905465,0.5,0.6967072010040283 -11,0.522857141154153,0.6909344022614615,0.5,0.695387221177419 -12,0.4714285710879735,0.6963721241269792,0.5,0.6947821259498597 -13,0.5371428564616612,0.69197706086295,0.5,0.6977233091990153 -14,0.5271428568022591,0.6924020821707589,0.5,0.696790087223053 +0,0.5285714268684387,0.693706214427948,0.5,0.6894098520278931 +1,0.5428571701049805,0.6844221353530884,0.5,0.685284435749054 +2,0.6000000238418579,0.6794106364250183,0.5,0.6848456263542175 +3,0.4714285731315613,0.6944605112075806,0.5,0.684241533279419 +4,0.4000000059604645,0.6952572464942932,0.5,0.683633029460907 +5,0.5142857432365417,0.6823317408561707,0.5,0.683365523815155 +6,0.4714285731315613,0.7098394632339478,0.5,0.683491587638855 +7,0.48571428656578064,0.6957525014877319,0.5,0.6835471987724304 +8,0.5142857432365417,0.6872329115867615,0.5,0.6833088994026184 +9,0.5285714268684387,0.6777858734130859,0.5,0.6837227940559387 +10,0.5285714268684387,0.6959571242332458,0.5,0.6845171451568604 +11,0.4714285731315613,0.6866312623023987,0.5,0.6827827095985413 +12,0.6000000238418579,0.6878129243850708,0.5,0.6826778650283813 +13,0.5857142806053162,0.680587112903595,0.5,0.6829558610916138 +14,0.5428571701049805,0.6874510645866394,0.5,0.6825443506240845 +15,0.5857142806053162,0.6669931411743164,0.5,0.6816622614860535 +16,0.5285714268684387,0.6665118336677551,0.6333333253860474,0.6810859441757202 +17,0.5428571701049805,0.6940799355506897,0.5,0.6807821989059448 +18,0.5285714268684387,0.6858396530151367,0.5,0.6802403330802917 +19,0.5571428537368774,0.6965922117233276,0.5,0.6796500086784363 +20,0.5571428537368774,0.6730545163154602,0.6333333253860474,0.6793673038482666 +21,0.5714285969734192,0.6641274094581604,0.6333333253860474,0.6786084771156311 +22,0.5857142806053162,0.6802955865859985,0.6333333253860474,0.6777995228767395 +23,0.6000000238418579,0.6691990494728088,0.6333333253860474,0.6772863864898682 +24,0.5285714268684387,0.6813409328460693,0.6333333253860474,0.6770401000976562 +25,0.5571428537368774,0.681715190410614,0.6333333253860474,0.6767625212669373 +26,0.5857142806053162,0.6717007160186768,0.6333333253860474,0.6764605045318604 +27,0.5571428537368774,0.6728200316429138,0.6333333253860474,0.67681884765625 +28,0.5571428537368774,0.6877877116203308,0.6333333253860474,0.6766759157180786 +29,0.6285714507102966,0.6604304909706116,0.6333333253860474,0.6760169267654419 +30,0.5714285969734192,0.6727585196495056,0.6333333253860474,0.6760045886039734 +31,0.5428571701049805,0.6957576274871826,0.6333333253860474,0.6759120225906372 +32,0.5285714268684387,0.7089534997940063,0.6333333253860474,0.6756139397621155 +33,0.5571428537368774,0.6838079690933228,0.6333333253860474,0.6753236055374146 +34,0.6571428775787354,0.6674954891204834,0.6333333253860474,0.6753148436546326 +35,0.5,0.6851524114608765,0.6333333253860474,0.6756839156150818 +36,0.699999988079071,0.6548210978507996,0.6333333253860474,0.6756232976913452 +37,0.5571428537368774,0.6891102194786072,0.6333333253860474,0.675424337387085 +38,0.5428571701049805,0.6909148693084717,0.6333333253860474,0.6745865345001221 +39,0.5571428537368774,0.6824678182601929,0.6333333253860474,0.6747882962226868 +40,0.6000000238418579,0.6751278042793274,0.6333333253860474,0.6750143766403198 +41,0.5714285969734192,0.7018095254898071,0.6333333253860474,0.67727130651474 +42,0.6428571343421936,0.6651911735534668,0.6333333253860474,0.6767734885215759 +43,0.5714285969734192,0.671413779258728,0.6333333253860474,0.6772162914276123 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log index 0fedb98..9ea902c 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log @@ -1,7 +1,23 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.48714285595076423,0.6985420622144427,0.4900000023841858,0.6923449222246806 -1,0.5128571452413286,0.6949508442197527,0.5333333349227906,0.6924974020322164 -2,0.5142857153075082,0.6945764923095703,0.5233333293596903,0.69326730966568 -3,0.5299999988079072,0.6939794659614563,0.5166666690508525,0.6925730729103088 -4,0.5157142867360797,0.6914954914365496,0.513333330154419,0.6928836464881897 -5,0.5385714278902326,0.6941981881005423,0.5,0.6939700500170389 +0,0.44999998807907104,0.6999397277832031,0.5333333611488342,0.6887118220329285 +1,0.41428571939468384,0.722046434879303,0.5,0.6896786093711853 +2,0.5714285969734192,0.6790615916252136,0.5,0.6878230571746826 +3,0.5857142806053162,0.6768568754196167,0.5,0.6851552128791809 +4,0.5571428537368774,0.6751108169555664,0.5,0.682022750377655 +5,0.41428571939468384,0.6964574456214905,0.5,0.6812027096748352 +6,0.5,0.6925972700119019,0.5,0.6808649301528931 +7,0.48571428656578064,0.6886793375015259,0.5,0.6787158250808716 +8,0.44285714626312256,0.6959816813468933,0.5,0.678663432598114 +9,0.6142857074737549,0.6681332588195801,0.46666666865348816,0.6785176992416382 +10,0.5285714268684387,0.6908625364303589,0.5333333611488342,0.6778850555419922 +11,0.5285714268684387,0.6787512302398682,0.5,0.6721013188362122 +12,0.5428571701049805,0.6850574016571045,0.5,0.6711490750312805 +13,0.6142857074737549,0.6637448668479919,0.6333333253860474,0.6698211431503296 +14,0.5285714268684387,0.7063723206520081,0.6333333253860474,0.6712397336959839 +15,0.5571428537368774,0.6846518516540527,0.6333333253860474,0.6714966893196106 +16,0.5857142806053162,0.6715434789657593,0.6333333253860474,0.6686673760414124 +17,0.5428571701049805,0.6824674010276794,0.6000000238418579,0.671775221824646 +18,0.5,0.671794593334198,0.6000000238418579,0.6746223568916321 +19,0.5857142806053162,0.6633580327033997,0.6000000238418579,0.6756001710891724 +20,0.5857142806053162,0.6837954521179199,0.6000000238418579,0.674997866153717 +21,0.5285714268684387,0.6842147707939148,0.6000000238418579,0.6752941012382507 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log index 8ed7acc..a8e83bc 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log @@ -1,7 +1,12 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5057142843518938,0.6991880393028259,0.5666666634877523,0.6908820724487305 -1,0.5057142857142857,0.6967511357579912,0.5733333293596904,0.6914699864387512 -2,0.48428571343421933,0.6949706717899867,0.5733333293596904,0.691004737218221 -3,0.5257142880984715,0.69105156149183,0.5433333325386047,0.6918413392702738 -4,0.5328571438789368,0.6928806969097683,0.5500000023841858,0.6918647646903991 -5,0.5299999982970102,0.6902506457056318,0.5500000023841858,0.6915504161516826 +0,0.4214285612106323,0.7075384259223938,0.6666666865348816,0.6910558342933655 +1,0.4571428596973419,0.6928271651268005,0.5666666626930237,0.6876137256622314 +2,0.5,0.6941860914230347,0.6666666865348816,0.6864851117134094 +3,0.5142857432365417,0.6894562244415283,0.6666666865348816,0.6850831508636475 +4,0.5428571701049805,0.6807078123092651,0.6666666865348816,0.6838822960853577 +5,0.5857142806053162,0.6992769241333008,0.6333333253860474,0.6826773285865784 +6,0.5714285969734192,0.6976850032806396,0.6333333253860474,0.6831978559494019 +7,0.5,0.6954684853553772,0.6333333253860474,0.682688295841217 +8,0.5857142806053162,0.6837905049324036,0.5666666626930237,0.6835858821868896 +9,0.6000000238418579,0.6841498613357544,0.5666666626930237,0.6832618713378906 +10,0.6142857074737549,0.6767346262931824,0.6000000238418579,0.6853111982345581 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log index f5dedb2..33e6494 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log @@ -1,29 +1,78 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5314285715988704,0.6915336986950466,0.5166666666666667,0.6915443913141887 -1,0.5014285715988704,0.6982584030287606,0.5,0.6913984251022339 -2,0.5114285724503653,0.6946385141781398,0.5199999968210857,0.6901828233400981 -3,0.542857141154153,0.6899840024539402,0.5166666690508525,0.6912989036242168 -4,0.5114285715988705,0.6960108208656312,0.5633333349227905,0.6884641861915588 -5,0.517142858164651,0.6922428710120064,0.5633333349227905,0.6874260242780049 -6,0.5428571449007307,0.6958116691453117,0.5633333293596904,0.6890041255950927 -7,0.5328571414947509,0.6931858927862985,0.5766666626930237,0.6863294577598572 -8,0.5171428557804653,0.69201290505273,0.553333330154419,0.6870029989878337 -9,0.5328571452413287,0.6869596862792968,0.553333330154419,0.6842731897036235 -10,0.527142858164651,0.688338131564004,0.5833333293596904,0.6832857998212178 -11,0.5571428568022592,0.6854379194123404,0.5699999984105428,0.6860459176699321 -12,0.5214285710879735,0.6907358465875898,0.5666666626930237,0.6853700749079387 -13,0.5271428564616613,0.6881520199775696,0.5666666626930237,0.6846447205543518 -14,0.5200000023841858,0.6942249952043806,0.5833333293596904,0.6842333563168843 -15,0.5399999986376082,0.6874291460854667,0.5666666626930237,0.6832174849510193 -16,0.5442857142857143,0.6894651590074812,0.5666666626930237,0.6829079119364421 -17,0.5471428557804653,0.6840649819374085,0.5733333293596904,0.68146191517512 -18,0.5514285714285714,0.6836562895774841,0.5733333293596904,0.6824229184786479 -19,0.5471428561210633,0.685246763569968,0.5733333317438761,0.6815004380544026 -20,0.5242857166699001,0.6895970695359366,0.5700000015894572,0.6816374293963114 -21,0.5457142853736877,0.68649509872709,0.579999996026357,0.6818017101287842 -22,0.5528571449007307,0.6873214176722935,0.6033333317438762,0.680437441666921 -23,0.5542857142857143,0.6889749710900442,0.6033333373069764,0.6815779709815979 -24,0.5714285721097674,0.6860064618928092,0.6033333317438762,0.6805376935005188 -25,0.5714285707473755,0.6898481655120849,0.5766666626930237,0.6814831066131591 -26,0.5385714273793357,0.6851528385707311,0.6033333317438762,0.6813869635264079 -27,0.5557142857142857,0.6897063882010324,0.5466666626930237,0.6827317142486572 +0,0.44285714626312256,0.6991942524909973,0.5666666626930237,0.6928198337554932 +1,0.44285714626312256,0.6986868977546692,0.6000000238418579,0.6887578368186951 +2,0.5285714268684387,0.6806528568267822,0.699999988079071,0.6891658902168274 +3,0.5428571701049805,0.6759377717971802,0.6666666865348816,0.6875340938568115 +4,0.5,0.6910053491592407,0.5333333611488342,0.6897391676902771 +5,0.6000000238418579,0.6980157494544983,0.5333333611488342,0.6867055296897888 +6,0.5714285969734192,0.6952627897262573,0.6333333253860474,0.6843330264091492 +7,0.5,0.708501398563385,0.5333333611488342,0.6842492818832397 +8,0.4714285731315613,0.6953228712081909,0.6333333253860474,0.6833994388580322 +9,0.4285714328289032,0.7137538194656372,0.5333333611488342,0.6815825700759888 +10,0.5857142806053162,0.6787053942680359,0.5333333611488342,0.6812545657157898 +11,0.5285714268684387,0.6980565786361694,0.5333333611488342,0.6809589266777039 +12,0.48571428656578064,0.6841543316841125,0.5333333611488342,0.6801007390022278 +13,0.5142857432365417,0.6854611039161682,0.5333333611488342,0.6811410784721375 +14,0.5428571701049805,0.692854106426239,0.5333333611488342,0.6793975830078125 +15,0.5,0.693091630935669,0.5333333611488342,0.6787646412849426 +16,0.5428571701049805,0.6869755983352661,0.5333333611488342,0.6788867712020874 +17,0.6285714507102966,0.6695905923843384,0.5333333611488342,0.6777395009994507 +18,0.6142857074737549,0.6833823919296265,0.6666666865348816,0.6774977445602417 +19,0.4285714328289032,0.69041907787323,0.6666666865348816,0.6774713397026062 +20,0.6285714507102966,0.6813910603523254,0.6666666865348816,0.6773689389228821 +21,0.5571428537368774,0.6970824003219604,0.6666666865348816,0.67594313621521 +22,0.48571428656578064,0.698740541934967,0.6666666865348816,0.6748327612876892 +23,0.5,0.6832336783409119,0.6666666865348816,0.6750011444091797 +24,0.5714285969734192,0.6819369196891785,0.7333333492279053,0.6744973659515381 +25,0.5,0.6885620951652527,0.6666666865348816,0.6737659573554993 +26,0.5857142806053162,0.6809400320053101,0.6666666865348816,0.6722508668899536 +27,0.5857142806053162,0.6868493556976318,0.6666666865348816,0.6705140471458435 +28,0.5571428537368774,0.6963421702384949,0.6666666865348816,0.6694627404212952 +29,0.5571428537368774,0.6928644776344299,0.699999988079071,0.667985737323761 +30,0.5857142806053162,0.6728905439376831,0.699999988079071,0.6640847325325012 +31,0.6285714507102966,0.6673994064331055,0.6666666865348816,0.6620914936065674 +32,0.5714285969734192,0.6815744042396545,0.6000000238418579,0.6631466746330261 +33,0.6142857074737549,0.6700264811515808,0.6666666865348816,0.6589863896369934 +34,0.6285714507102966,0.6710253357887268,0.7666666507720947,0.6570687890052795 +35,0.6285714507102966,0.6694613099098206,0.7666666507720947,0.6534979939460754 +36,0.6000000238418579,0.673751175403595,0.7666666507720947,0.6509091854095459 +37,0.699999988079071,0.6384153366088867,0.7666666507720947,0.6455373167991638 +38,0.6142857074737549,0.6602683067321777,0.7666666507720947,0.6457210183143616 +39,0.6000000238418579,0.6570167541503906,0.7666666507720947,0.6419142484664917 +40,0.5285714268684387,0.6873019337654114,0.7666666507720947,0.6438121199607849 +41,0.6571428775787354,0.6575998067855835,0.7666666507720947,0.6416386365890503 +42,0.6714285612106323,0.6398344039916992,0.7666666507720947,0.636827826499939 +43,0.6142857074737549,0.6678704619407654,0.6333333253860474,0.6363298892974854 +44,0.6000000238418579,0.6574569940567017,0.6333333253860474,0.6332235336303711 +45,0.5571428537368774,0.6936197876930237,0.6333333253860474,0.6386598944664001 +46,0.48571428656578064,0.674123227596283,0.7333333492279053,0.6332918405532837 +47,0.5714285969734192,0.6568307876586914,0.7333333492279053,0.6296091675758362 +48,0.6571428775787354,0.6752610802650452,0.6333333253860474,0.6313585638999939 +49,0.6142857074737549,0.6654943227767944,0.6666666865348816,0.6271207928657532 +50,0.5714285969734192,0.64876788854599,0.7666666507720947,0.6222039461135864 +51,0.5714285969734192,0.6554151177406311,0.7666666507720947,0.6194021701812744 +52,0.6285714507102966,0.6811070442199707,0.699999988079071,0.6222575902938843 +53,0.5,0.6733109354972839,0.7666666507720947,0.6206138730049133 +54,0.6857143044471741,0.6355476379394531,0.7666666507720947,0.6172237992286682 +55,0.6428571343421936,0.6429391503334045,0.7666666507720947,0.610683023929596 +56,0.699999988079071,0.6431941390037537,0.7666666507720947,0.6040784120559692 +57,0.5857142806053162,0.6390208005905151,0.7666666507720947,0.599091112613678 +58,0.6714285612106323,0.6215845346450806,0.7666666507720947,0.5963844656944275 +59,0.5714285969734192,0.6767314076423645,0.7666666507720947,0.594350278377533 +60,0.5857142806053162,0.654553234577179,0.7666666507720947,0.597917914390564 +61,0.6571428775787354,0.6368202567100525,0.7666666507720947,0.594440758228302 +62,0.5857142806053162,0.6373482942581177,0.7666666507720947,0.5937718749046326 +63,0.6714285612106323,0.6218699216842651,0.7666666507720947,0.5908302068710327 +64,0.6285714507102966,0.6418803334236145,0.7666666507720947,0.5894334316253662 +65,0.6428571343421936,0.651384711265564,0.7666666507720947,0.5873546600341797 +66,0.6857143044471741,0.6136307716369629,0.7666666507720947,0.5836991667747498 +67,0.6285714507102966,0.6547907590866089,0.7666666507720947,0.5805030465126038 +68,0.6428571343421936,0.6504008173942566,0.7666666507720947,0.5775812864303589 +69,0.6285714507102966,0.6349735856056213,0.8333333134651184,0.577498733997345 +70,0.6142857074737549,0.6277393698692322,0.7666666507720947,0.5676293969154358 +71,0.6285714507102966,0.6180124282836914,0.7666666507720947,0.5669645071029663 +72,0.6571428775787354,0.6404402852058411,0.7666666507720947,0.5728614330291748 +73,0.6000000238418579,0.6509358286857605,0.7666666507720947,0.5773971676826477 +74,0.6857143044471741,0.6074771285057068,0.7666666507720947,0.5693350434303284 +75,0.6142857074737549,0.6181129217147827,0.8333333134651184,0.5715264678001404 +76,0.6142857074737549,0.6537542343139648,0.8333333134651184,0.5776958465576172 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log index b6d9b1a..06cfeef 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log @@ -1,38 +1,26 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.47357142754963466,0.7016914561816624,0.489999996026357,0.6928864550590516 -1,0.49714285952704296,0.6948366066387721,0.5000000023841857,0.6932907629013062 -2,0.5157142848627908,0.6912908261162894,0.4999999968210856,0.6926370159784953 -3,0.5557142867360796,0.6883591250010899,0.4900000023841858,0.6923522528012593 -4,0.5328571411541531,0.6916633398192269,0.5300000023841858,0.6924762312571208 -5,0.5271428559507643,0.6940979657854353,0.5133333325386047,0.6948701310157775 -6,0.4999999989782061,0.6965528205462864,0.5299999960263571,0.6931524499257405 -7,0.5299999986376082,0.6943741229602268,0.5366666690508525,0.6907269350687663 -8,0.5200000010217939,0.6896662480490549,0.5333333325386047,0.6918054294586181 -9,0.5414285721097674,0.6896717851502555,0.51,0.6895792706807454 -10,0.5442857122421265,0.6869146861348834,0.5299999960263571,0.6920580530166626 -11,0.5271428559507643,0.6903188899585179,0.5333333325386047,0.688429791132609 -12,0.519999999148505,0.6882028957775661,0.5266666690508525,0.6883021426200867 -13,0.5414285714285715,0.6863224758420672,0.5433333293596904,0.6872516266504923 -14,0.5457142846924918,0.6898028012684413,0.5466666626930237,0.6872788818677267 -15,0.5385714275496346,0.6873857648032052,0.513333330154419,0.6886362107594808 -16,0.5171428557804653,0.6908025227274214,0.5233333357175192,0.6865509589513142 -17,0.537142858164651,0.6912337800434657,0.5400000023841858,0.6858355220158895 -18,0.5357142853736877,0.686203762463161,0.5333333357175192,0.6865465331077576 -19,0.5385714268684387,0.686791867528643,0.5199999968210857,0.6908469009399414 -20,0.5485714306150163,0.6838112051146371,0.5300000023841858,0.6878064362208048 -21,0.5457142858845847,0.6851812624931335,0.5266666690508525,0.6857646322250366 -22,0.5742857129233224,0.6873863213402884,0.5199999992052714,0.6922881023089091 -23,0.557142858164651,0.6858838316372463,0.546666665871938,0.6861592070261637 -24,0.5571428595270429,0.684755881513868,0.5333333325386047,0.6888457910219828 -25,0.5657142850330897,0.6817869257926941,0.5533333325386047,0.6850604685147603 -26,0.5685714268684388,0.6790135472161429,0.5633333293596904,0.6853071594238281 -27,0.56,0.678402864251818,0.546666665871938,0.6861965052286784 -28,0.5457142880984716,0.6872439633096967,0.5499999992052714,0.6860261297225952 -29,0.5728571430274418,0.681340376990182,0.5366666626930237,0.688714214960734 -30,0.5442857130936214,0.6808226561546326,0.5499999992052714,0.684869114557902 -31,0.5457142857142857,0.6904919954708645,0.5499999992052714,0.6834750429789225 -32,0.5600000006811959,0.6792391041346959,0.5266666658719381,0.684692329565684 -33,0.5628571435383388,0.6788800794737679,0.5533333325386047,0.6840412537256877 -34,0.5614285738127572,0.686559522492545,0.523333330154419,0.6834982848167419 -35,0.5885714295932225,0.6771885909352984,0.5266666658719381,0.6854198892911275 -36,0.572857140813555,0.6774901570592607,0.5566666626930237,0.6841973392168681 +0,0.6285714507102966,0.6860395073890686,0.5,0.697557270526886 +1,0.5428571701049805,0.7180352807044983,0.5,0.6849462985992432 +2,0.4714285731315613,0.7034924030303955,0.5,0.6821131110191345 +3,0.5714285969734192,0.6674895882606506,0.5,0.6782051920890808 +4,0.6142857074737549,0.6582968831062317,0.5666666626930237,0.6711674928665161 +5,0.6571428775787354,0.6587326526641846,0.5333333611488342,0.6712075471878052 +6,0.6428571343421936,0.6721373200416565,0.5333333611488342,0.6627221703529358 +7,0.6428571343421936,0.6632710099220276,0.5333333611488342,0.6609752774238586 +8,0.5714285969734192,0.6732084155082703,0.5333333611488342,0.6610121130943298 +9,0.699999988079071,0.6355205178260803,0.5333333611488342,0.658193826675415 +10,0.6142857074737549,0.6549214124679565,0.6000000238418579,0.6514555811882019 +11,0.6571428775787354,0.6578994393348694,0.6333333253860474,0.640929639339447 +12,0.6142857074737549,0.6552501320838928,0.6666666865348816,0.6395145654678345 +13,0.699999988079071,0.6412282586097717,0.6000000238418579,0.6432967782020569 +14,0.6571428775787354,0.6306743025779724,0.6666666865348816,0.638803243637085 +15,0.6285714507102966,0.6337465643882751,0.6000000238418579,0.6423308253288269 +16,0.6142857074737549,0.6415921449661255,0.6000000238418579,0.6402501463890076 +17,0.699999988079071,0.6025219559669495,0.6666666865348816,0.6313323974609375 +18,0.7428571581840515,0.6010540723800659,0.6666666865348816,0.6270257234573364 +19,0.6857143044471741,0.6025679707527161,0.6666666865348816,0.6196262836456299 +20,0.6285714507102966,0.6268807053565979,0.6333333253860474,0.6236225366592407 +21,0.6142857074737549,0.643852949142456,0.6666666865348816,0.6199780106544495 +22,0.6571428775787354,0.6074948310852051,0.6666666865348816,0.6213743090629578 +23,0.6285714507102966,0.6160183548927307,0.6000000238418579,0.6242619752883911 +24,0.7285714149475098,0.5787917375564575,0.6000000238418579,0.6211546659469604 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log index 5418179..88a4bd5 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log @@ -1,15 +1,69 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5171428557804653,0.6987621927261353,0.523333330154419,0.6926083747545878 -1,0.48142857193946836,0.7014159611293248,0.5,0.6933795626958211 -2,0.5171428559507643,0.693435559953962,0.5,0.6953311554590861 -3,0.5142857146263122,0.6938273034776961,0.5,0.6936214733123779 -4,0.4942857153075082,0.6931262884821211,0.5066666634877522,0.6925415802001953 -5,0.5171428574834551,0.6950657888821193,0.5333333293596904,0.6900775297482808 -6,0.500000000510897,0.6927964878082276,0.503333330154419,0.690705235004425 -7,0.5157142846924918,0.6913318610191346,0.5833333293596904,0.6875104037920634 -8,0.5185714272090367,0.6945670972551619,0.5899999984105428,0.6868704064687093 -9,0.5114285734721592,0.6940865840230669,0.5499999984105428,0.6893706917762756 -10,0.5357142843518938,0.687145208971841,0.5433333325386047,0.6897754502296448 -11,0.4985714272090367,0.6957644414901734,0.5,0.6907372371355692 -12,0.5142857136045184,0.6937260460853577,0.5066666634877522,0.690777329603831 -13,0.5257142843518938,0.6908095693588256,0.5,0.6918720539410909 +0,0.5,0.6897499561309814,0.5333333611488342,0.6917239427566528 +1,0.5571428537368774,0.6810449361801147,0.6333333253860474,0.687508761882782 +2,0.5714285969734192,0.6828582882881165,0.699999988079071,0.6743428707122803 +3,0.6285714507102966,0.6671308875083923,0.699999988079071,0.665975034236908 +4,0.6000000238418579,0.6503329873085022,0.5666666626930237,0.6602555513381958 +5,0.6000000238418579,0.6853387951850891,0.5333333611488342,0.6618395447731018 +6,0.5714285969734192,0.6724538207054138,0.5333333611488342,0.6597490310668945 +7,0.6000000238418579,0.6780796647071838,0.6333333253860474,0.6547072529792786 +8,0.6000000238418579,0.6692798733711243,0.6000000238418579,0.6600579619407654 +9,0.5857142806053162,0.6842799782752991,0.6333333253860474,0.6491286754608154 +10,0.6857143044471741,0.6589351892471313,0.6666666865348816,0.6464974880218506 +11,0.6714285612106323,0.6073400378227234,0.6333333253860474,0.6402981877326965 +12,0.6857143044471741,0.6296303272247314,0.6333333253860474,0.6364182829856873 +13,0.6000000238418579,0.6421504020690918,0.6666666865348816,0.6308519840240479 +14,0.6428571343421936,0.6463477611541748,0.7333333492279053,0.6307885050773621 +15,0.6714285612106323,0.6315144896507263,0.6000000238418579,0.6383130550384521 +16,0.6714285612106323,0.6678759455680847,0.6666666865348816,0.623306155204773 +17,0.6142857074737549,0.6516129374504089,0.7333333492279053,0.6305685639381409 +18,0.5714285969734192,0.6742792129516602,0.6666666865348816,0.6265249848365784 +19,0.6285714507102966,0.633062481880188,0.6666666865348816,0.6250401735305786 +20,0.7142857313156128,0.6269166469573975,0.699999988079071,0.6159048676490784 +21,0.6857143044471741,0.6211478114128113,0.6666666865348816,0.6096144914627075 +22,0.6571428775787354,0.6407753825187683,0.6666666865348816,0.6108776926994324 +23,0.6285714507102966,0.6574938297271729,0.699999988079071,0.611552894115448 +24,0.7285714149475098,0.6154484748840332,0.699999988079071,0.6058552265167236 +25,0.6571428775787354,0.6453319787979126,0.6666666865348816,0.6030356884002686 +26,0.7142857313156128,0.6162654757499695,0.6666666865348816,0.6012576818466187 +27,0.7714285850524902,0.579783022403717,0.6666666865348816,0.5943759083747864 +28,0.6857143044471741,0.613929271697998,0.6666666865348816,0.5952675938606262 +29,0.7428571581840515,0.6029356122016907,0.6666666865348816,0.5893346071243286 +30,0.6857143044471741,0.6115120053291321,0.6666666865348816,0.5828908085823059 +31,0.6571428775787354,0.5785018801689148,0.6666666865348816,0.5818368196487427 +32,0.7714285850524902,0.5708844065666199,0.699999988079071,0.5766626000404358 +33,0.7285714149475098,0.5830618739128113,0.6666666865348816,0.5784139037132263 +34,0.6857143044471741,0.5964425206184387,0.6666666865348816,0.5790040493011475 +35,0.699999988079071,0.5653460025787354,0.6333333253860474,0.5775831341743469 +36,0.800000011920929,0.5418214201927185,0.6666666865348816,0.568440854549408 +37,0.7142857313156128,0.5420607328414917,0.6333333253860474,0.5590124130249023 +38,0.6857143044471741,0.5777881145477295,0.7666666507720947,0.5544193983078003 +39,0.800000011920929,0.5399784445762634,0.6333333253860474,0.5481395721435547 +40,0.7714285850524902,0.5380803942680359,0.6333333253860474,0.5474888682365417 +41,0.800000011920929,0.5395530462265015,0.699999988079071,0.5547803044319153 +42,0.7571428418159485,0.56524658203125,0.7333333492279053,0.5605494976043701 +43,0.6857143044471741,0.6217158436775208,0.6666666865348816,0.5673932433128357 +44,0.7571428418159485,0.5163819193840027,0.6333333253860474,0.5462445616722107 +45,0.7285714149475098,0.5719181895256042,0.6666666865348816,0.5556058287620544 +46,0.8142856955528259,0.5318387150764465,0.699999988079071,0.542469322681427 +47,0.800000011920929,0.5217306613922119,0.699999988079071,0.5329701900482178 +48,0.7571428418159485,0.550763726234436,0.6666666865348816,0.5402341485023499 +49,0.7857142686843872,0.5524207353591919,0.7666666507720947,0.5383545756340027 +50,0.7857142686843872,0.4935723543167114,0.699999988079071,0.5305332541465759 +51,0.7428571581840515,0.5095095038414001,0.699999988079071,0.5238121151924133 +52,0.7714285850524902,0.5137304067611694,0.6666666865348816,0.5253551006317139 +53,0.7714285850524902,0.4722200036048889,0.6666666865348816,0.5321410298347473 +54,0.800000011920929,0.507485032081604,0.699999988079071,0.5323264598846436 +55,0.800000011920929,0.500211238861084,0.7333333492279053,0.5201900601387024 +56,0.7428571581840515,0.5600330829620361,0.699999988079071,0.5280928015708923 +57,0.8428571224212646,0.4973629415035248,0.6666666865348816,0.5316758751869202 +58,0.800000011920929,0.5023689866065979,0.699999988079071,0.5163004994392395 +59,0.7857142686843872,0.5073022842407227,0.7333333492279053,0.5217677354812622 +60,0.800000011920929,0.4964520037174225,0.7333333492279053,0.5241829752922058 +61,0.7714285850524902,0.5243247151374817,0.7333333492279053,0.5178665518760681 +62,0.7428571581840515,0.4775066375732422,0.7333333492279053,0.5158405900001526 +63,0.8142856955528259,0.4943179488182068,0.7333333492279053,0.5205886960029602 +64,0.8285714387893677,0.47023943066596985,0.7333333492279053,0.5202285051345825 +65,0.8285714387893677,0.47069570422172546,0.699999988079071,0.5238437652587891 +66,0.800000011920929,0.4560033977031708,0.6666666865348816,0.5369584560394287 +67,0.8428571224212646,0.4310634732246399,0.699999988079071,0.535792350769043 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log index 65d9877..96f966c 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log @@ -1,7 +1,66 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.45642857108797347,0.7006578615733555,0.5933333325386048,0.6892776958147685 -1,0.5099999986376081,0.6941094957079206,0.5600000015894572,0.6893724838892619 -2,0.5500000006811959,0.6926329466274807,0.5499999992052714,0.6898844281832377 -3,0.5342857166699001,0.6914799227033342,0.5533333325386047,0.6907166401545207 -4,0.5071428557804653,0.6919935607910156,0.5400000015894572,0.6901983857154846 -5,0.5099999982970101,0.6912928114618574,0.5166666626930236,0.690146291255951 +0,0.5285714268684387,0.70943284034729,0.5,0.6891118884086609 +1,0.5,0.682983934879303,0.5333333611488342,0.6774283051490784 +2,0.5,0.6822140216827393,0.5,0.674212634563446 +3,0.5428571701049805,0.6812313795089722,0.6333333253860474,0.6674104332923889 +4,0.5428571701049805,0.6907945275306702,0.6666666865348816,0.6610017418861389 +5,0.7571428418159485,0.6459213495254517,0.6666666865348816,0.6510583162307739 +6,0.5857142806053162,0.6607534289360046,0.7333333492279053,0.6476513743400574 +7,0.5571428537368774,0.7020584940910339,0.6000000238418579,0.6482408046722412 +8,0.6285714507102966,0.651698648929596,0.7333333492279053,0.6440180540084839 +9,0.6285714507102966,0.6525290608406067,0.699999988079071,0.6404276490211487 +10,0.5571428537368774,0.6626172661781311,0.6000000238418579,0.6384837031364441 +11,0.7714285850524902,0.6121799945831299,0.699999988079071,0.6300020813941956 +12,0.5285714268684387,0.68280029296875,0.7666666507720947,0.6264722943305969 +13,0.6428571343421936,0.6344267129898071,0.7333333492279053,0.6271907091140747 +14,0.6571428775787354,0.6337957978248596,0.699999988079071,0.6222438812255859 +15,0.5857142806053162,0.6666333079338074,0.7666666507720947,0.6135798096656799 +16,0.6428571343421936,0.6416365504264832,0.7666666507720947,0.6136104464530945 +17,0.6857143044471741,0.6291075348854065,0.7333333492279053,0.6110914945602417 +18,0.5857142806053162,0.6419916749000549,0.7666666507720947,0.6118472814559937 +19,0.6857143044471741,0.6471466422080994,0.7666666507720947,0.6116288900375366 +20,0.699999988079071,0.6218615770339966,0.7666666507720947,0.6048887968063354 +21,0.7142857313156128,0.6058748960494995,0.800000011920929,0.5980150699615479 +22,0.6857143044471741,0.6536536812782288,0.7666666507720947,0.5988863706588745 +23,0.7142857313156128,0.5974873900413513,0.7666666507720947,0.5931006669998169 +24,0.699999988079071,0.6345766186714172,0.7666666507720947,0.5956420302391052 +25,0.7142857313156128,0.6020234823226929,0.7666666507720947,0.5929238796234131 +26,0.7571428418159485,0.6054713726043701,0.7666666507720947,0.5864226222038269 +27,0.7285714149475098,0.5797297954559326,0.7666666507720947,0.5770849585533142 +28,0.6857143044471741,0.5862997174263,0.7666666507720947,0.5755631923675537 +29,0.699999988079071,0.5815725326538086,0.7666666507720947,0.5680984258651733 +30,0.7571428418159485,0.5875855684280396,0.7666666507720947,0.5653308033943176 +31,0.7428571581840515,0.59307461977005,0.7666666507720947,0.5596583485603333 +32,0.7285714149475098,0.5824219584465027,0.7666666507720947,0.5542746186256409 +33,0.7428571581840515,0.5487408638000488,0.7666666507720947,0.5475561618804932 +34,0.7714285850524902,0.5453357100486755,0.7666666507720947,0.5390299558639526 +35,0.699999988079071,0.5826383233070374,0.7666666507720947,0.5384895205497742 +36,0.7428571581840515,0.5785836577415466,0.7666666507720947,0.5384939908981323 +37,0.800000011920929,0.5221903324127197,0.800000011920929,0.5248792767524719 +38,0.7571428418159485,0.5415723323822021,0.7333333492279053,0.52363121509552 +39,0.7142857313156128,0.5308774709701538,0.7666666507720947,0.5188950896263123 +40,0.8285714387893677,0.5039507150650024,0.699999988079071,0.5497564673423767 +41,0.7285714149475098,0.522099494934082,0.7666666507720947,0.5127894282341003 +42,0.800000011920929,0.49496960639953613,0.7666666507720947,0.5317777991294861 +43,0.7142857313156128,0.54979407787323,0.7666666507720947,0.518308699131012 +44,0.800000011920929,0.5173864364624023,0.7666666507720947,0.5136661529541016 +45,0.7714285850524902,0.5049048066139221,0.7666666507720947,0.5074952840805054 +46,0.8428571224212646,0.46522027254104614,0.7333333492279053,0.5151350498199463 +47,0.7857142686843872,0.4586173892021179,0.7666666507720947,0.49594709277153015 +48,0.8142856955528259,0.4513322412967682,0.7666666507720947,0.5036203265190125 +49,0.7857142686843872,0.4805935025215149,0.7666666507720947,0.49205276370048523 +50,0.8714285492897034,0.461495578289032,0.7666666507720947,0.4947642982006073 +51,0.8142856955528259,0.45038914680480957,0.7666666507720947,0.48641273379325867 +52,0.8285714387893677,0.4692426323890686,0.7666666507720947,0.4842015504837036 +53,0.8285714387893677,0.4418858587741852,0.7666666507720947,0.47760167717933655 +54,0.8142856955528259,0.4626115560531616,0.7666666507720947,0.5104318261146545 +55,0.7714285850524902,0.4583064019680023,0.800000011920929,0.47649335861206055 +56,0.7857142686843872,0.48417940735816956,0.7666666507720947,0.4835038483142853 +57,0.8142856955528259,0.41650596261024475,0.7666666507720947,0.4740460515022278 +58,0.8142856955528259,0.47463259100914,0.7666666507720947,0.4784967303276062 +59,0.8142856955528259,0.41721436381340027,0.7666666507720947,0.4703983962535858 +60,0.8571428656578064,0.4002102315425873,0.7666666507720947,0.4720929265022278 +61,0.8571428656578064,0.40112966299057007,0.7666666507720947,0.4783501923084259 +62,0.8142856955528259,0.40630030632019043,0.7666666507720947,0.4812992811203003 +63,0.8571428656578064,0.39736542105674744,0.7666666507720947,0.4867094159126282 +64,0.8571428656578064,0.39688029885292053,0.7666666507720947,0.48755544424057007 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log index 0173200..a76d35e 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log @@ -1,72 +1,81 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.45285714319774084,0.7004325219563076,0.4999999968210856,0.6923015236854553 -1,0.510000000170299,0.6925107029506138,0.5499999992052714,0.6897638281186421 -2,0.49285714149475096,0.6951574465206691,0.5600000015894572,0.6893068687121073 -3,0.5314285721097673,0.6871553581101554,0.58,0.6862353547414144 -4,0.5128571428571429,0.6891458439826965,0.576666665871938,0.6859392499923707 -5,0.5300000023841858,0.6883872754233225,0.6066666650772095,0.6845079270998636 -6,0.5428571435383388,0.6819491570336478,0.5199999992052714,0.6913470721244812 -7,0.5328571418353489,0.6876490834781102,0.5566666690508525,0.6862125007311503 -8,0.5471428595270429,0.6838002378599984,0.5633333325386047,0.6860194659233093 -9,0.577142858164651,0.6758887658800398,0.56,0.6830268923441569 -10,0.5357142857142857,0.6854284225191389,0.5966666666666667,0.6809024349848429 -11,0.5785714272090366,0.672123282296317,0.5966666690508524,0.6791659998893738 -12,0.5771428550992693,0.6786476813043867,0.5966666658719381,0.6789486853281657 -13,0.5771428595270429,0.6734117555618286,0.5366666666666666,0.683167097568512 -14,0.5771428571428572,0.6748955825396946,0.6033333301544189,0.6762293704350789 -15,0.5685714292526245,0.6785146025248936,0.5733333301544189,0.6753435683250427 -16,0.5714285710879735,0.6750922206469945,0.5666666634877523,0.6784018365542094 -17,0.5714285738127572,0.6755850124359131,0.6066666690508524,0.6711989005406698 -18,0.5971428559507642,0.6657130663735525,0.6100000015894572,0.6713538503646851 -19,0.5871428573131561,0.6649717777115958,0.5800000023841858,0.6731101942062377 -20,0.6099999979564121,0.6620254846981594,0.5966666690508524,0.6691777078310649 -21,0.5857142843518939,0.6568685712133135,0.6166666690508524,0.6685060389836629 -22,0.5999999986376081,0.6677337915556771,0.6199999968210856,0.6646020976702373 -23,0.5985714292526245,0.6573921295574733,0.6066666658719381,0.6675634717941284 -24,0.6071428564616612,0.6500424265861511,0.6199999992052714,0.6646291995048523 -25,0.6357142836706979,0.6490701770782471,0.6066666634877523,0.6653391941388448 -26,0.6185714299338204,0.6540108833994184,0.5900000023841858,0.6671239876747131 -27,0.5957142853736878,0.6540800183159965,0.6200000023841858,0.6567391570409139 -28,0.6271428578240531,0.6479742029735021,0.629999996026357,0.6604131213823954 -29,0.6471428564616613,0.6419319316319057,0.6433333357175192,0.6500384895006815 -30,0.6314285731315613,0.6484006139210292,0.639999996026357,0.6529464817047119 -31,0.6257142853736878,0.6434511154038566,0.6400000023841858,0.6514733775456747 -32,0.5985714289120265,0.647422297000885,0.6366666626930236,0.6504776446024577 -33,0.6528571408135551,0.644021168095725,0.6400000023841858,0.6458321897188822 -34,0.6342857136045184,0.6444830993243627,0.6433333325386047,0.6470845079421997 -35,0.6357142877578735,0.6348403910228184,0.6233333325386048,0.6469374950726827 -36,0.6314285707473755,0.6329652694293431,0.6533333293596904,0.6431685789426168 -37,0.632857140813555,0.6368656379835946,0.6333333293596903,0.6460606940587361 -38,0.647142859527043,0.6225141378811427,0.6499999992052714,0.6362034312884013 -39,0.6385714302744184,0.6213473122460501,0.6433333349227905,0.6430588014920553 -40,0.6571428547586714,0.6195992374420166,0.6499999992052714,0.6290147614479065 -41,0.6657142836706978,0.6211318744931902,0.63,0.6465527804692587 -42,0.6357142836706979,0.6269246745109558,0.6533333357175192,0.6257873805363973 -43,0.6685714289120266,0.6040968881334577,0.6566666626930237,0.6225301861763001 -44,0.6528571435383388,0.6153657766750881,0.6633333293596904,0.618172025680542 -45,0.6671428574834551,0.6192822994504656,0.679999996026357,0.6157241686185201 -46,0.6800000003405979,0.6039430175508772,0.676666665871938,0.6145836718877157 -47,0.6785714289120265,0.6093884931291853,0.676666665871938,0.6166351532936096 -48,0.6657142850330898,0.6110737368038722,0.6866666650772095,0.6178668411572774 -49,0.6742857119015285,0.597239852973393,0.6633333293596904,0.6123670935630798 -50,0.6728571404729571,0.6046345554079329,0.6800000015894572,0.6126772395769755 -51,0.6885714275496346,0.5885523986816407,0.6900000015894572,0.6020873681704203 -52,0.6899999976158142,0.5954246718542916,0.6633333349227906,0.6291564702987671 -53,0.6728571404729571,0.5985614344051906,0.676666665871938,0.6021230808893839 -54,0.6685714302744185,0.5940935819489616,0.6699999960263571,0.6056211590766907 -55,0.6785714299338205,0.5977618169784545,0.6566666626930237,0.6146054108937581 -56,0.6885714302744185,0.5839549456323896,0.699999996026357,0.5996990458170572 -57,0.702857141494751,0.5753864659581865,0.6899999984105428,0.592821835676829 -58,0.6899999982970102,0.5862361601420811,0.6933333293596904,0.603890974521637 -59,0.6942857146263123,0.5839736379895891,0.7033333349227905,0.593503380616506 -60,0.6871428561210632,0.5775445556640625,0.7000000015894572,0.6009596530596415 -61,0.6900000006811959,0.5839045837947301,0.6833333349227906,0.6024158215522766 -62,0.6814285721097674,0.5818148541450501,0.6966666682561239,0.5915511822700501 -63,0.7228571428571429,0.5620201533181327,0.699999996026357,0.5924234263102214 -64,0.7028571445601327,0.5646260159356253,0.7133333317438761,0.5889633218447368 -65,0.6971428547586713,0.5706823052678789,0.7166666650772094,0.5844872252146402 -66,0.7085714278902326,0.5611035261835371,0.7199999984105429,0.5893045846621195 -67,0.6900000017029898,0.5691344605173383,0.7066666626930237,0.5915948088963826 -68,0.7114285697255815,0.5531742661339896,0.6899999984105428,0.5902642552057902 -69,0.7057142850330897,0.5706885474068778,0.699999996026357,0.5928465406099955 -70,0.6957142874172756,0.5673071384429932,0.6966666690508525,0.589189912478129 +0,0.4285714328289032,0.7016264200210571,0.5,0.6805540919303894 +1,0.5142857432365417,0.7004365921020508,0.5333333611488342,0.673122763633728 +2,0.6285714507102966,0.659683883190155,0.5333333611488342,0.6728394627571106 +3,0.5857142806053162,0.6670846939086914,0.5666666626930237,0.66733717918396 +4,0.5857142806053162,0.6697160005569458,0.5666666626930237,0.6636950373649597 +5,0.6000000238418579,0.6463307738304138,0.6000000238418579,0.6551560163497925 +6,0.6285714507102966,0.6723317503929138,0.6666666865348816,0.6523845791816711 +7,0.6142857074737549,0.6598004102706909,0.699999988079071,0.6474529504776001 +8,0.6000000238418579,0.6616008281707764,0.699999988079071,0.6433619260787964 +9,0.7285714149475098,0.6293016672134399,0.7333333492279053,0.6331322193145752 +10,0.6857143044471741,0.6146317720413208,0.7333333492279053,0.6310235857963562 +11,0.6428571343421936,0.6245951056480408,0.6333333253860474,0.6232808232307434 +12,0.7285714149475098,0.6471548080444336,0.6666666865348816,0.6203639507293701 +13,0.6428571343421936,0.6277396082878113,0.7333333492279053,0.6184256672859192 +14,0.6857143044471741,0.6098326444625854,0.7333333492279053,0.6091620326042175 +15,0.7142857313156128,0.6371685862541199,0.7333333492279053,0.6095433831214905 +16,0.6571428775787354,0.6324229836463928,0.7333333492279053,0.5970665216445923 +17,0.6428571343421936,0.6109034419059753,0.699999988079071,0.5903723239898682 +18,0.6571428775787354,0.6039682030677795,0.699999988079071,0.5881001949310303 +19,0.6857143044471741,0.6041842103004456,0.7333333492279053,0.5844427943229675 +20,0.7142857313156128,0.5783839821815491,0.7333333492279053,0.5763997435569763 +21,0.699999988079071,0.591020941734314,0.7333333492279053,0.5774649381637573 +22,0.7428571581840515,0.5953509211540222,0.699999988079071,0.572405219078064 +23,0.6428571343421936,0.5814296007156372,0.699999988079071,0.56685870885849 +24,0.6857143044471741,0.6081064939498901,0.699999988079071,0.572791337966919 +25,0.699999988079071,0.6120529770851135,0.7333333492279053,0.5569896697998047 +26,0.7142857313156128,0.5775588154792786,0.699999988079071,0.5475650429725647 +27,0.7714285850524902,0.5588387250900269,0.7333333492279053,0.5424559712409973 +28,0.7428571581840515,0.5656088590621948,0.7333333492279053,0.5294283628463745 +29,0.7285714149475098,0.5562855005264282,0.7333333492279053,0.5401715636253357 +30,0.7857142686843872,0.51934415102005,0.7333333492279053,0.5230486392974854 +31,0.7428571581840515,0.5450546145439148,0.7333333492279053,0.5155746340751648 +32,0.7571428418159485,0.5522570013999939,0.7333333492279053,0.5260934233665466 +33,0.8142856955528259,0.5401697158813477,0.7666666507720947,0.5098159909248352 +34,0.800000011920929,0.5418713092803955,0.7666666507720947,0.5064862966537476 +35,0.800000011920929,0.5823748111724854,0.800000011920929,0.5058448910713196 +36,0.8428571224212646,0.5441785454750061,0.7666666507720947,0.4952688217163086 +37,0.8428571224212646,0.49010947346687317,0.7666666507720947,0.48777472972869873 +38,0.800000011920929,0.4999350309371948,0.7666666507720947,0.4998880922794342 +39,0.7571428418159485,0.5008710622787476,0.7666666507720947,0.48107224702835083 +40,0.800000011920929,0.5040972232818604,0.800000011920929,0.4738801121711731 +41,0.7714285850524902,0.5135973691940308,0.800000011920929,0.48707303404808044 +42,0.800000011920929,0.45259568095207214,0.800000011920929,0.4782698452472687 +43,0.8428571224212646,0.46692073345184326,0.800000011920929,0.4613445997238159 +44,0.8142856955528259,0.5113503336906433,0.800000011920929,0.4484953284263611 +45,0.7857142686843872,0.47707676887512207,0.800000011920929,0.4686664640903473 +46,0.8285714387893677,0.46471261978149414,0.800000011920929,0.44274333119392395 +47,0.8142856955528259,0.45893746614456177,0.800000011920929,0.44759485125541687 +48,0.8571428656578064,0.45081114768981934,0.800000011920929,0.4330193102359772 +49,0.7714285850524902,0.4875996708869934,0.800000011920929,0.4516359865665436 +50,0.8285714387893677,0.4865187406539917,0.8333333134651184,0.4265669584274292 +51,0.8285714387893677,0.4774653911590576,0.7666666507720947,0.4561677873134613 +52,0.8142856955528259,0.4763886630535126,0.800000011920929,0.4154636561870575 +53,0.8285714387893677,0.44643643498420715,0.800000011920929,0.4147930145263672 +54,0.8428571224212646,0.42695677280426025,0.800000011920929,0.4108729362487793 +55,0.8285714387893677,0.4327614903450012,0.800000011920929,0.4010864496231079 +56,0.8428571224212646,0.4502446949481964,0.800000011920929,0.40737348794937134 +57,0.8285714387893677,0.44718682765960693,0.800000011920929,0.39528751373291016 +58,0.8999999761581421,0.3805624842643738,0.800000011920929,0.39595872163772583 +59,0.8142856955528259,0.40194055438041687,0.800000011920929,0.41492053866386414 +60,0.8428571224212646,0.39548853039741516,0.800000011920929,0.3937239646911621 +61,0.8428571224212646,0.3543522357940674,0.7666666507720947,0.4500727653503418 +62,0.800000011920929,0.38233697414398193,0.800000011920929,0.3875177502632141 +63,0.8142856955528259,0.38054370880126953,0.800000011920929,0.4089045226573944 +64,0.8428571224212646,0.4083065688610077,0.800000011920929,0.38408881425857544 +65,0.8285714387893677,0.3922334909439087,0.800000011920929,0.4071909487247467 +66,0.8571428656578064,0.3875272870063782,0.800000011920929,0.37895438075065613 +67,0.8857142925262451,0.3548952043056488,0.800000011920929,0.4202457070350647 +68,0.8285714387893677,0.4289672374725342,0.800000011920929,0.3842262327671051 +69,0.800000011920929,0.4254842698574066,0.800000011920929,0.430513471364975 +70,0.8285714387893677,0.4039224684238434,0.8333333134651184,0.36190065741539 +71,0.8428571224212646,0.37446093559265137,0.800000011920929,0.37436091899871826 +72,0.8428571224212646,0.3388216197490692,0.800000011920929,0.36854684352874756 +73,0.8999999761581421,0.3313564956188202,0.800000011920929,0.3742331266403198 +74,0.8142856955528259,0.3232550323009491,0.800000011920929,0.3509472608566284 +75,0.8857142925262451,0.32069191336631775,0.800000011920929,0.3813706338405609 +76,0.8428571224212646,0.31552544236183167,0.800000011920929,0.367133766412735 +77,0.8285714387893677,0.34134817123413086,0.800000011920929,0.37680041790008545 +78,0.8714285492897034,0.2930099368095398,0.800000011920929,0.36697426438331604 +79,0.8999999761581421,0.29883044958114624,0.7666666507720947,0.3563176989555359 diff --git a/make_predict.py b/make_predict.py deleted file mode 100644 index e59bbb5..0000000 --- a/make_predict.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,357 +0,0 @@ -# -*- encoding:utf-8 -*- - -import codecs -import json -import pickle -import numpy as np -from sklearn.cross_validation import StratifiedKFold -from sklearn.cross_validation import train_test_split -from sklearn.metrics import roc_auc_score, accuracy_score -import sentiment_analysis -import time, os -from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier - - -def make_idx_word_index(s_sent, max_s, max_c, word_vob, char_vob): - data_s = [] - if len(s_sent) > max_s: - i = 0 - while i < max_s: - if not word_vob.__contains__(s_sent[i]): - data_s.append(word_vob["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_s.append(word_vob[s_sent[i]]) - i += 1 - else: - i = 0 - while i < len(s_sent): - if not word_vob.__contains__(s_sent[i]): - data_s.append(word_vob["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_s.append(word_vob[s_sent[i]]) - i += 1 - num = max_s - len(s_sent) - for inum in range(0, num): - data_s.append(0) - - data_w = [] - for ii in range(0, min(max_s, len(s_sent))): - word = s_sent[ii] - data_c = [] - for chr in range(0, min(word.__len__(), max_c)): - if not char_vob.__contains__(word[chr]): - data_c.append(char_vob["**UNK**"]) - # data_c.append(0) - else: - data_c.append(char_vob[word[chr]]) - - num = max_c - word.__len__() - for i in range(0, max(num, 0)): - data_c.append(0) - - data_w.append(data_c) - - num = max_s - len(s_sent) - for inum in range(0, num): - data_tmp = [] - for i in range(0, max_c): - data_tmp.append(0) - data_w.append(data_tmp) - - return [data_s], [data_w] - - -def predict_result(model_name, datafile, model_file, testfile): - - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - - nn_model = sentiment_analysis.select_model(model_name, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file" + model_file) - nn_model.summary() - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - t = str(int(time.time())) - fw = codecs.open("./result/result_temp/classify_result_" + t + ".txt", 'w', encoding='utf-8') - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - print(num) - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - id = item['id'] - words = item['words'] - test_words, test_char = make_idx_word_index(words, max_s, max_c, word_vob, char_vob) - predictions = nn_model.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - for si in range(0, len(predictions)): - sent = predictions[si] - item_p = np.argmax(sent) - label = vob_idex_target[item_p] - fw.write(str(id)+'\t'+str(label)+'\n') - fw.close() - - -def generate_result(model_name, datafile, model_file, testfile, batch_size, count): - if not os.path.exists(datafile): - line_count = len(codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8').readlines()) - print(int(line_count)) - return np.array([0] * int(line_count)) - # return np.array([0] * int(line_count)) - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - test_length = len(test_label) - # print(test_length) - if not os.path.exists("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file): - print("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + " file not found") - # if file not exists, return [0]*30 - line_count = len(codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8').readlines()) - print(int(line_count)) - return np.array([0] * line_count) - nn_model = sentiment_analysis.select_model(model_name, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file) - nn_model.summary() - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - result = [] - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - print(num) - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - id = item['id'] - words = item['words'] - test_words, test_char = make_idx_word_index(words, max_s, max_c, word_vob, char_vob) - predictions = nn_model.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - for si in range(0, len(predictions)): - sent = predictions[si] - item_p = np.argmax(sent) - label = vob_idex_target[item_p] - result.append(label) - return np.array(result) - - -def predict_result_mul(model_name, datafile, model_file, testfile): - print(model_name) - print(datafile) - print("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file) - print(testfile) - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - - nn_model = sentiment_analysis.select_model(model_name, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - acc_best = 0. - acc = 0. - if os.path.exists("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file): - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file) - - loss, acc = nn_model.evaluate([np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], np.array(test_label), verbose=0, - batch_size=batch_size) - print('\n test_test score:', loss, acc) - - if os.path.exists("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + ".best_model.h5"): - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + ".best_model.h5") - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + ".best_model.h5") - loss, acc_best = nn_model.evaluate([np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], np.array(test_label), verbose=0, - batch_size=batch_size) - print('bestModel...\n test_test score:', loss, acc_best) - - if acc >= acc_best: - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file) - - else: - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + ".best_model.h5") - nn_model.summary() - - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - t = str(int(time.time())) - fw = codecs.open("./submission/classify_result_" + t, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - print(num) - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - id = item['id'] - words = item['words'] - test_words, test_char = make_idx_word_index(words, max_s, max_c, word_vob, char_vob) - predictions = nn_model.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - for si in range(0, len(predictions)): - sent = predictions[si] - item_p = np.argmax(sent) - label = vob_idex_target[item_p] - fw.write(str(id) + '\t' + str(label) + '\n') - fw.close() - - -def model_file_select(nn_model, modelfile, test, test_char, test_label): - target12_acc_best = 0. - target12_acc = 0. - if os.path.exists("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile): - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile) - - loss, target12_loss, target1_loss, target12_acc, target1_acc = nn_model.evaluate( - [np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], - [np.array(test_label)], - verbose=0, batch_size=batch_size) - print("\n" + "test score: loss:%.6f, target12_loss:%.6f, target1_loss:%.6f, target12_acc:%.6f, target1_acc:%.6f" - % (loss, target12_loss, target1_loss, target12_acc, target1_acc)) - - if os.path.exists("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile + ".best_model.h5"): - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile + ".best_model.h5") - loss, target12_loss, target1_loss, target12_acc_best, target1_acc = nn_model.evaluate( - [np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], - [np.array(test_label)], - verbose=0, batch_size=batch_size) - print("\n" + "bestModel test score::loss:%.6f, target12_loss:%.6f, target1_loss:%.6f, target12_acc:%.6f, " - "target1_acc:%.6f " % (loss, target12_loss, target1_loss, target12_acc_best, target1_acc)) - if target12_acc >= target12_acc_best: - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile) - else: - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile + ".best_model.h5") - nn_model.summary() - return nn_model - - -def predict_submit_task1_merge(modelname1, modelname2, modelname3, modelfile1, modelfile2, modelfile3, datafile, - testfile): - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - - nn_model1 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname1, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - model1 = model_file_select(nn_model1, modelfile1, test, test_char, test_label) - - nn_model2 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname2, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - model2 = model_file_select(nn_model2, modelfile2, test, test_char, test_label) - - nn_model3 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname3, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - model3 = model_file_select(nn_model3, modelfile3, test, test_char, test_label) - - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - t = str(int(time.time())) - fw = codecs.open("./submission/classify_result_" + t + "_" + "three_task", 'w', - encoding='utf-8') - - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - print(num) - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - id = item['id'] - words = item['words'] - test_words, test_char = make_idx_word_index(words, max_s, max_c, word_vob, char_vob) - predictions1 = model1.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - predictions2 = model2.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - predictions3 = model3.predict([np.array(test_words), - np.array(test_char)], verbose=0) - for si in range(0, len(predictions1[0])): - item_p = np.argmax(0.33 * predictions1[0][si] + 0.33 * predictions2[0][si] + 0.33 * predictions3[0][si]) - label = vob_idex_target[item_p] - fw.write(str(id) + '\t' + str(label) + '\n') - fw.close() - - -def predict_submit_task1_staking(modelname1, modelname2, modelname3, modelfile1, modelfile2, modelfile3, datafile, - testfile): - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - - nn_model1 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname1, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - model1 = model_file_select(nn_model1, modelfile1, test, test_char, test_label) - - nn_model2 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname2, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - model2 = model_file_select(nn_model2, modelfile2, test, test_char, test_label) - - nn_model3 = sentiment_analysis.select_model(modelname3, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - model3 = model_file_select(nn_model3, modelfile3, test, test_char, test_label) - '''模型融合中使用到的各个单模型''' - clfs = [model1, model2, model3] - - '''切分一部分数据作为测试集''' - X, X_predict, y, y_predict = train_test_split(train, train_label, test_size=0.33, random_state=500) - dataset_blend_train = np.zeros((len(X), len(clfs))) - dataset_blend_test = np.zeros((len(X_predict), len(clfs))) - - '''5折stacking''' - n_folds = 10 - skf = list(StratifiedKFold(train_label, n_folds)) - for j, clf in enumerate(clfs): - '''依次训练各个单模型''' - # print(j, clf) - dataset_blend_test_j = np.zeros((X_predict.shape[0], len(skf))) - for i, (train, test) in enumerate(skf): - '''使用第i个部分作为预测，剩余的部分来训练模型，获得其预测的输出作为第i部分的新特征。''' - # print("Fold", i) - X_train, y_train, X_test, y_test = X[train], y[train], X[test], y[test] - clf.fit(X_train, y_train) - y_submission = clf.predict_proba(X_test)[:, 1] - dataset_blend_train[test, j] = y_submission - dataset_blend_test_j[:, i] = clf.predict_proba(X_predict)[:, 1] - '''对于测试集，直接用这k个模型的预测值均值作为新的特征。''' - dataset_blend_test[:, j] = dataset_blend_test_j.mean(1) - print("val acc Score: %f" % accuracy_score(y_predict, dataset_blend_test[:, j])) - clf = GradientBoostingClassifier(learning_rate=0.02, subsample=0.5, max_depth=6, n_estimators=30) - clf.fit(dataset_blend_train, y) - y_submission = clf.predict_proba(dataset_blend_test)[:, 1] - print("Linear stretch of predictions to [0,1]") - y_submission = (y_submission - y_submission.min()) / (y_submission.max() - y_submission.min()) - print("blend result") - print("val auc Score: %f" % (roc_auc_score(y_predict, y_submission))) - - -if __name__ == '__main__': - batch_size = 128 - resultdir = "./result/temp_result/" - predict_result(model_name='BiLSTM_Attention', - datafile="./modfile/data.pkl", - model_file="BiLSTM_Attention.pkl", - testfile='./data/mix_data_test_data.json') diff --git a/model/config.py b/model/config.py deleted file mode 100644 index 0230247..0000000 --- a/model/config.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,371 +0,0 @@ -# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- - -import codecs -import numpy as np - - -class Config(object): - def __init__(self): - self.level = "word" # which level of input sequence len to use, options are 'word', 'char' - self.batch_size = 128 # how many samples to train in one time - self.num_epochs = 50 # max epochs to run - self.learning_rate = 0.001 - self.optimizer = "adam" # optimizer to train the model by optimizing loss function - self.model_type = None # options are "aspect", "senti", "joint" - self.joint_model_type = None # model type for joint model - self.aspect_model_type = None # model type for aspect classification model - self.senti_model_type = None # model type for sentiment analysis model - self.exp_name = None # experience name (also model name) - - self.checkpoint_dir = "model" # the model will be saved under 'model' directory - self.checkpoint_monitor = "val_f1" # the metric we monitor - self.checkpoint_mode = "max" # save the model with max f1_macro value - self.checkpoint_save_best_only = True - self.checkpoint_save_weights_only = True - self.checkpoint_verbose = True - - self.early_stopping_monitor = 'val_f1' - self.early_stopping_patience = 5 - self.early_stopping_mode = 'max' - - # max sequence len of different level, the value is set according to the length's distribution, - # see data_analysis.md for details - self.max_len_word = 128 # i just use max in final - self.max_len_char = 200 # i just use max in final - self.max_len = {'word': self.max_len_word, - 'char': self.max_len_char - } # max input sequence length - - self.embedding_dim = 300 # word embedding dimension - self.aspect_embed_dim = 100 # aspect embedding dimension - self.dropout = 0.5 # probability to dropout(set output value to 0) - - self.n_aspect = 10 # how many aspects(fine-grained) - self.n_senti_class = 3 # how many sentiment classes: positive, negative, neural, (not exist) - - # how many class to classify (vary with different model) - self.n_class = {'aspect': self.n_aspect, # aspect classification model - 'senti': self.n_senti_class, # sentiment analysis model - 'joint': self.n_aspect * (self.n_senti_class + 1) - } - - self.aspect_names_en = ['power', 'price', 'decor', 'config', 'safety', 'appear', 'control', 'oil_cost', 'space', 'comfort'] - self.aspect_names = ['动力', '价格', '内饰', '配置', '安全性', '外观', '操控', '油耗', '空间', '舒适性'] - self.aspect_names_to_class = dict((aspect_name, idx) for idx, aspect_name in enumerate(self.aspect_names)) - - self.joint_polarity_to_class = {-2: 0, -1: 1, 0: 2, 1: 3} - self.join_class_to_polarity = dict((cls, pol) for pol, cls in self.joint_polarity_to_class.items()) - - self.senti_polarity_to_class = {-1: 0, 0: 1, 1: 2} - self.senti_class_to_polarity = dict((cls, pol) for pol, cls in self.senti_polarity_to_class.items()) - - # self.aspect_to_keyword = {'动力': ['起步', '四驱', '发动机', '烧机油', '急加速'], - # '价格': ['变相加价', '总价', '特别便宜', '三万八', '价格', '23万一千八'], - # '内饰': ['坐垫', '座椅'], - # '配置': ['后排空调出风口', '后排出风口', '中控', '主机', '功放', '三分频', '配置', '大灯', - # '无钥匙'], - # '安全性': ['安全隐患', '刹车灯', '特别安全'], - # '外观': ['油漆', '崩漆', '日行灯', '转向灯', '白色', '线条', '淡绿', '色差', '尾灯', '车漆', - # '车身硬度', '大屁股'], - # '操控': ['四轮定位', '防爆胎', '方向感'], - # '油耗': ['油耗', '由耗', '纯市区', '纯汽油', '省油！', '费油'], - # '空间': ['后排座位'], - # '舒适性': ['异响', '不响', '噪音', '压缩机', '后窗', '胎压', '舒适性'] - # } - # self.aspect_neg_words = {'动力': ['肉的不行', '够快'], - # '价格': ['变相加价', '特别便宜'], - # '内饰': [], - # '配置': [], - # '安全性': ['不安全'], - # '外观': ['崩漆', '设计太失败', '惨不忍睹', '难看'], - # '操控': [], - # '油耗': ['冬天就是费油'], - # '空间': [], - # '舒适性': ['不响才怪', '也差', '太头疼'] - # } - # self.aspect_pos_words = {'动力': ['错不了', '很好'], - # '价格': [], - # '内饰': ['很好看'], - # '配置': ['强些'], - # '安全性': [], - # '外观': ['硬朗', '太美', '强多了'], - # '操控': [], - # '油耗': ['省油！'], - # '空间': [], - # '舒适性': [] - # } - - self.aspect_to_keyword = {'动力': ['动力', '发动机', '机油', '动力', '四驱', '烧机油', '变速箱', '转速', '加速', '水平对置', - 'cvt', ], - '价格': ['价格', '优惠', '便宜', '性价比', '实惠', '售价', '降价', '价钱', '价位', '预算', '报价'], - '内饰': ['内饰', '座椅'], - '配置': ['配置', '导航', '中控', ''], - '安全性': ['安全', '急刹车', '追尾', '刹车', '安全性', '气囊'], - '外观': ['外观', '颜色', '好看', '丑', '车漆', '前脸', '外形', '美', '漂亮', '难看', '颜值'], - '操控': ['操控', '失控', '手动挡', '自动挡', '漂移', '甩尾', '方向盘', '操作灵活'], - '油耗': ['油耗', '节油', '省油', '费油', '满箱油全', '油表', '95油', '98油', '97油', - '柴油', '汽油', '油箱', '加油', '油桶'], - '空间': ['后备箱', '空间大', '后排', '空间'], - '舒适性': ['噪音', '异响', '轮胎', '空调', '舒适性'] - } - self.aspect_neg_words = {'动力': ['不选', '质量不行', '很一般', - '故障', '变闷', '受不了', '缝隙里油泥不好搞', - '没有以前灵敏', '有点受不了', '弱', '太差', '降低动力', '没动力', - '好不到哪去', '机油不好', '没有', '差', '噪音大', '查不出', '不擅长', '鸡肋', - '风险很大', '急加速不行', '漏油', '比不了', '发动机一直是弊病', '轻微渗油', '别指望', - '发动机没力', '肯定烧', '差点', '变弱', '别提了', '发动机嘶哑', '异响', - '爬坡也爬不上去', '很差', '怕动力不够', '动力弱', '差很远', '垃圾', '车重', - '动力不够', '牛车', '通病', '缺陷', '温度高', '噪音', '变速箱落后是真的', '抖动', - '维修起来麻烦', '动力下降', '偶尔有顿挫', '有点降低', '动力不行', '反应慢', '不够', - '肉', '转速低', '降低', '失望', '烧机油', '压力大', '不足', '不完善', '不太行', - '加速缓慢', '有问题', '渗油', '偏弱', '弱了点', '不好受', '偏磨', '加速抖动', - '不如之前', '下降', '捉急', '心理没底', '没', '锁死', '老坏', '涉水', '跟不上', - '差点意思', '逊色', '机油消耗', '差的不是一点', '降了', '败笔', '发动机烧漏机油风险大', - '不佳', '连速腾起步都赶不上', '设计缺陷', '减少', '后段不行', '不好', - '变速箱大众调教得很差', '太弱', '差的不是一点点', '发动机噪声大', '不咋地', - '有点烧机油', '下机油', '牛b了', '坑', '不行', '发动机异味', '不够用', - '太吵', '怕', '慢', '急加速问题', '有一个缸体不工作，严重抖动', - '发动机实在太老', '飙车差劲', '变速箱差', '感觉不到', '下降明显', '不会很快', - '没什么亮点', '担心', '差些', '发动机存在问题', '动力呵呵', '代价大', '不如', - '硬伤', '郁闷', '负担大', '严重烧机油', '熄火', '动力不足'], - '价格': ['太贵了', '单价高', '保养价格贵', '价格老贵了', '有钱任性', '不高', '才优惠', - '奇高', '只优惠', '不合适', '贵一点', '贵', '价格贵', '小贵', '价格较高', '不合算', - '不菲', '高昂', '不值', '高了好多', '给个更便宜的价格', - '便宜', '也贵', '贵了', '贵太多', '没有优势', - '降价还是不要想了', '价格太贵', '售价明显高于竞品', '放弃', '咬咬牙的', '价格高', - '高', '不便宜', '不平易近人', '优惠太小', '没法比', '虚高', '保值率还是大众好一些', - '死硬', '略贵', '不用考虑了', '高了', '不靠谱', '价格不合适', '不会便宜', '套路', - '性价比不算很高', '没啥优惠', '价格过高', '下不来', '挺高', '不好'], - '内饰': ['全塑料', '设计感土土的', '挫', '有啥用', '不咋地', '粗糙', '不敢恭维', - '后排座椅 格叽格叽响', '渣', '硬', '太水', - '内饰太寒酸', '松垮', '内饰全塑料', '内饰低档', '没戏', '做工粗糙', - '如此的廉价的感觉', '又硬又凸', '较差', '伤感情', '脱皮', '差一点', '不能接受', - '掉渣', '内饰太L0W', '简陋', '改了也不够', '内饰要吐', '破破烂烂的', - '非常一般', '有点难受', '落后', '单调', '完败', '没用', '座椅臭味', '多丑', - '不如现款', '内饰有廉价感', '糙', '不舒坦', '一般', '太差', '有缺点', '磕碜了点', - '科技感也是一如既往的差 ', '惨不忍睹', '不豪华', '吐槽', '不如', '硬伤', '差', - '不细致', '没得比', '不是一个档次', '不改改', '令人发指', '扯淡', '有些粗', '不够整', - '旧', '内饰太老气', '渣渣', '内饰简陋', - '内饰太过简单粗糟', '异味', '过时', '有点糙'], - '配置': ['差', '国内减配', '后悔', '没优势', '没落锁', '不让人省心', - '山寨', '不高', '没必要', '不太重视', '音质不行', '差点', - '太垃圾', '卡死', '不咋样', '不值得', '中控差', '不选', '很差', '比不上', - '主导航垃圾', '差一点', '不方便', '丑到无力吐槽', '配置比较低', '黑', '有点抖', '鸡肋', - '不能忍', '简配太厉害', '不喜欢', '掉了链子', '结实', '太扯了', '坑', - '缺失遗憾', '不实用', '电动尾门太慢', '车载导航带到沟里', '断轴', - '低', '机舱里走管子不好走', '没区别', '不值钱', '惨不忍睹', '看不上眼', '没有', '坑爹', - '有声音', '吐槽', '不如', '不行', '黑屏', '贵', '中控山寨', '早日完蛋', - '垃圾导航', '垃圾', '挫', '不值', '硬伤', '没', '配置简陋'], - '安全性': ['心寒', '不强', '刹车软', '差点追尾', '恼人', '急刹车', '刹不住', '有问题', '软', - '不行', '能比', '刹车软，刹车行程距离长', '无奈', '不给力', '不耐磨', '怎么这么软', - '少了5个气囊', '差劲', '刹不住、软', '醉了'], - '外观': ['不咋地 ', '有点土', '挫', '不协调', '不敢恭维', '好难看', '差很多', '廉价', '挫样', - '硬', '日系车漆软', '外观没有丝毫质感！ ', '接受不了', '差点', '变色', '倾斜大', - '还是现款好看', '摇晃', '不像换代应有的水平', '取消', '不符合', '毁所有', '软', '平庸', - '不好看', '车漆薄', '颜值差', '外观太小气', '真难看', '尾灯好丑', '怎么看都不协调', - '纠结', '外观太丑', '漆面太薄', '不怎么好看', '难看', '车漆软', '小', - '里外不一', '老气', '拼凑杀马特', '屁股很不喜欢', '硬伤', '丑', '差', - '史上最难看', '越丑', '前脸无爱', '无力吐槽', '低级无下限', '外观奇丑无比', '不咋新潮', - '平淡无奇平庸无比', '接受度不高', '中网丑', '车漆真软', '车漆薄，软', - '觉得19款没有老款好看', '多丑', '镀铬太多 让人尴尬'], - '操控': ['比不上', '廉价', '差很多', '静音不好', '无法比', '有点抖', - '很一般', '废刹车', '脱皮', '开起来实在是….', '刹车盘', '渗油', '多余的', '重一点', - '异响', '离地间隙低', '方向好飘，方向盘总是要不断修正方向', '完败', '抖', '掉漆', - '底盘漏油', '无解', '偏了', '响', '车身的反应较迟钝。', '刹车怎么这么软呢 ', - '磨得发亮', '味道真不小', '垃圾', '刹不住', - '刺拉拉', '太差', '嘎嘎响', '底盘不是很紧凑 ', '走烂路很颠', - '就是底盘太高了，过坑瞬间比轿车晃动大 ', '通病', '不如', '差', '颠簸', '承受不起', - '高度只有180mm', '手感差', '不佳', '没那么好', '就那么回事', '需要一直微调', '很危险', - '方向盘飘', '差劲', '不好'], - '油耗': ['高了点', '费油', '不可能低', '大些', '1.8T油耗不低', '不公平', - '高很多', '油耗蹭蹭的往上涨', '油耗会上升', '全行业造假', '油耗有上升', '油耗造假', - '颇高', '增加油耗', '油耗太高', '很高', '油耗增加', '上升', '油耗高', '太高', '完败', - '油耗大', '偏大', '不着调', '略高', '爱咋滴就咋滴', '不好', '大', '比以前多', '高点', - '油耗不好控制', '升高', '高', '性价比低', '特大', '还得', '油耗上升', '高一点', - '真不喜欢', '增加', '油耗确实很高', '贼高', '顶不住', '油耗哗哗的', '油耗很高', - '不见得省'], - '空间': ['不敢恭维', '没宽敞', '不咋地', '后排空间小了点', '不行', '较小', '抓狂', '显小', - '后排挤', '钻进去', '不满意', '不大', '只要是空间小', '小了点', '空间不行', '不舒服', - '轴距和空间严重不符', '完败', '有异响', '别奢望', '真的是', '·没有那么大', '有点小', - '小', '硬伤', '差', '太小了', '真不喜欢', '太小', '小一点'], - '舒适性': ['隔音差', '隔音太差', '风噪最大', '滴水现象', '有问题打不开', '较差', '气味呛人', - '个隔音，胎噪件15万的车都不如。听着心烦', '视野不如森', '忽悠 容易晕车', '空调不咋样', - '受不了', '风噪真心大', '颈椎有点累 ', '速度快噪音大', '响', '空调不制冷', - '不是很舒适', '出问题', '大', '气门声音大 ', '异响多', '原胎声音我是受不了', '差', - '颠簸', '噪音大', '空调问题', '隔音效果一般', '声音很大', '抖抖', ' 金属撞击响声特别大', - '硬', '确实不好', '乱响', '异响比较多', '很烦', '不严实 ', '比不过', '耳朵不好了', - '不支持', '异响', '很差', '抖', '不严实', '震', '俩车隔音都不算太好', '难受', '大不少', - '噪音', '有噪音', '抖动', '质量很差', '开着累', '不舒服、异响', '开空调没劲', '大些', - '唯一不足', '音响太差', '座椅有点臭', '土腥味', '摩擦音', '风噪大', '不舒服', - 'X1的座椅小的可怜', '噪音依旧', '噪音烦透了', '噪音变大', '噪音较大', '滋滋声', - '特别抖', '噪音偏大', '味特别大', '卡顿', '扯淡', '就别想了', '有味', ' 格叽格叽响', - '腰疼', '不咋地', '颠', '坑', '不行', '不会小', '更吵', '差一点', '偏低', - '发动机噪音确实大', '差多了', '后排太硬。', '声音大', '各种响', '有异响', '隔音不好', - '有金属敲击的声音', '发出声音', '比较差', '内部味道较大', '风噪是大了点', '有点影响', - '隔音还不如森', '毛病多']} - - self.aspect_pos_words = {'动力': ['猛', '加速快', '非常好', '不是好了一点点', '好动力', '水平对置发动机原来这么稳', - '不后悔', '足够', '堪比跑车', '没有问题', '少', '信心满满', '强劲', '已经很好了', - '有点性能', '开着爽', '好很很多', '不错', '很舒适', '反应敏捷', '无损耗', '很够用', - '足', '水平对置发动机就是轻啊', '着迷', '驾驶质感强', '轻盈', '强很多', '破百', - '耐用', '非常不错', '好一些', '没有', '真的不错', '不为别的，就为了中控台和空间', - '用不完的劲', '灵敏', '牛', '牛逼', '足够了', '没烧', '够了', '提速快', '改观不少', - '爽', '排量大', '比直列的要轻很多', '可以的', '好不少', '好', '提速满意', '不烧', - '强点', '够', '加速不错', '胜出', '动力强多', '没情况', '好很多', '发动机是好', - '老牛逼。', '还行', '坦克也没有欧蓝德好', '水平对置发动机 全时四驱是最大卖点', - '算我输', '性能高一点', '比以前快', '有所提升', '给力', '效果不错', '四驱旅行', - '够用', '强', '用的很好', '更高', '优', '很少', '干净', '超车', '动力强很多', - '加速好点', '相当给力', '喜欢', '打95分', '动力为王', '性能强', '可以', '强些', - '不漏', '轻松', '没问题', '优势明显', '不烧机油', '发动机很新啊', '不差', '超过', - '没有烧机油', '确实好', '杠杠的', '动力更好', '太给力了', '性能好', '加强', '舒服', - '将开启汽车动力的新篇章', '加速轻轻松松', '稳定', '发动机不错', '秒杀', '高', '升级', - '非常猛', '可靠', '全时四驱', '扯淡', '动力好点', '提高', '高原小霸王', '省心', - '动力牛', '噪音很小', '是好车', '完全够用', '还不错', '没见过跑14万还有那么好的机器', - '很爽', '动力足', '没感觉', '满意', '无敌', '还可以', '四驱无敌', '最好', - '发动机专家', '拔尖', '好太多', '追不上', '有动力', '随叫随到', '啥都好', - '车挺好', '动力也够了', '不能比拟', '不少机油', '很喜欢', '动力和空间太诱惑了！', - '充足', '甩n条街', '动力响应更好', '更足', '太好了', '出色', '没得说', '好点', - '更强', '动力不错', '好的多', '均衡'], - '价格': ['值', '再贵的车也没有欧蓝德好', '可以的', '优惠不错', '不高', '不贵', '最好', - '费用不高', '性价比高', '比较低的', '还便宜', '低', '价格很合适了', '相当不错', - '找不出第二辆', '合理', '操控满意', '便宜', '优惠幅度不小', '实惠', '下降', - '不能比的', '价格不够', '优惠力度还是可以的 ', '便宜很多', '优惠小', '便宜些', - '价格好', '这个价格也超级优惠', '愉快', '高', '很不错', '很良心', '价格不错', - '真心便宜，秒杀对手 ', '不会后悔', '合适'], - '内饰': ['提升太多', '细', '内饰也好看', '好不少', '好', '喜欢', '豪华感强', '做工好', - '对口味', '还可以', '帅', '内饰豪华', '保持偏硬的造型', '保值耐用', '内饰绝对豪华', - '简约的很', '认可度高', '好看，炫酷', '提升', '高出一个档次', '用料不错', '骚', - '内饰也可以', '还过的去', '不错', '中上游', '简洁干练', '内饰科技感高', '不逊于', - '有提升', '更好', '坐进去最放松的', '比森林人强不少', '品质不错', '符合', '比较好', - '皮实耐用', '好了很多', '内饰真的提升', '记忆', '没的说', '真的不错', '设计上也是不错', - '好一些', '秒杀', '高大上', '绝对值', '漂亮', '吊打', '强', '手感爆炸', '带喜感', - '新', '要求一致', '好点', '可以保持', '好看', '才叫车', '胜出', '大改'], - '配置': ['蛮好', '不错不错', '坦克也没有欧蓝德好', '丰富', '打80分', '只有优点，缺点几乎为零', - '四驱好能安全一点 ', '不错', '已成绝唱', '整车也比较扎实', '都不错', '满意', '出色', - '高', '蛮期待 SGP 对新森的影响', '压倒性的说欧蓝德更好', '真高', '一点问题都没有', - '喜欢他的机械手刹', '实用', '超前', '胜出', '有点提升', '合适', '值', '秒杀', - '不太喜欢', '新款厚重大气', '不后悔', '米其林3ST，安静，舒适', '厚道', '值得', '还可以', - '强太多', '机械上还是很皮实的', '配置高', '很良心', '开着各方面都舒服', '均衡', - '视野和通过性好', '够了', 'OK', '非常不错', '很好', '全', '提升', '肯定四驱欧蓝德好 ', - '顶级', '好', '好用', '好的不是一点', '其他配置真心喜欢', '买它的机械性能', '不差', - '比较合理'], - '安全性': ['好', '最适合', '皮实', '超好用', '更扎实', '较好', '刹车脚感非常细腻，适合微操', - '很高', '甩三条街', '不错', '卤素灯明显穿透力更强一些', '有效果', '算我输', '更硬', - '耐用', '高', '第一', '强', '要求一致', '安全感极高', '还完刹车线性了，随踩随有挺好', - '安全', '避震我觉得挺好，够硬', '喜欢他的机械手刹'], - '外观': ['很耐看', '个人觉得比较好看', '外观不错', '喜欢', '好', '一次没修过', '对口味', - '车的外形也漂亮', '喜欢森的外形', '底盘厉害', '保持偏硬的造型', '厚', '外观真心赞', - '颜色和光线还可以', '降低', '高度都一样', '特别迷恋', '性价比', '颜值高', '时尚', - '低调', '作用不大', '认可度高', '上了一个档次了，隐隐有豪华车的感觉', '帅气~', - '大气，中规中矩！', '强化', '前脸设计看着精致，协调了', '不错', '社会社会！', - ' 好看', '尊贵', '这么看确实大气点', '视野好', '挺炫', '逼格高', '秀气', - '新款厚重大气', '喜欢这种前脸', '看中外观', '大', '合眼缘', '外形好看', '看着真舒服', - '外形至少本人觉得新款还可以', '前网辨识度很高', '大气', '有面子', '真的不错', '秒杀', - '硬朗', '前脸更好看', '吊打', '漂亮', '要求一致', '生猛', '很好', '好看', '前脸好看', - '大改', '仍觉得好'], - '操控': ['非常好', '好感', '操控感', '比较灵', '不后悔', '完美', '安心', '操控性不错', '优点', - '操控性好很多', '有点性能', '犹如宝马一般', '不错', '更好', '不飘', '优势', '确实很棒', - '着迷', '驾驶质感强', '破百', '牛逼', '牛', '操控不错', '就要这么开', '漂移', '可以的', - '好', '基本可以', '较好', '好很多', '良好', '上了一个档次', '稳', '灵活', '符合', - '性能高一点', '很稳', '没的说', '给力', '第一', '强', '值得', '很韧性', '很好', '灵巧', - '略胜一筹', '操控真心不错', '不费劲', '优', '喜欢', '打95分', '挺稳的', '可以', '专业', - '看点是操控', '蛮好', '舒适感强', '好用', '操控很棒', '完胜', '操控也好', '轻松', - '没问题', '操纵好，底盘高', '底盘比新森强一些', '甩三条街', '更好更灵活', '不解释', - '超过', '厉害', '好开', '性能好', '距离短', '闻名', '比较好', '舒服', '方向盘比较轻', - '高', '升级', '可靠', '提高', '也不错', '操控很满意', '好性能', - '没见过跑14万还有那么好的机器', '很准', '满意', '质量好', '无敌', '还可以', '忍住没改', - '有', '追求', '最好', '无法比', '自信多了', '操控好', '相当好', '别纠结', '坐姿高', - '挺棒', '紧凑', '肯定', '一流', '要求一致', '没得说', '好点', '胜出', '安全', '随性'], - '油耗': ['满意', '废油', '好', '差不多', '不高', '可以', '相当棒', '也不高', - '2.0森市区油耗真心不错，', '省油', '不一定费油', '正常', '省油的', '没有任何问题', - '额外惊喜', '低', '够可以', '油耗也不高', '非常满意', '还行', '不会高', '值得拥有', - '油耗下降', '不错', '没有任何油耗现象', '最低油耗5.9驾驶体验超级棒', '油耗好', - '油耗高一个', '知足', '平顺自然', '无变化', '很低', '无毛病', '挺省油的', - '油耗没那么高', '油耗水平已经很满意', '稳定', '给力', '效果不错', '耐用', '好一些', - '这油耗牛啊', '油耗低一些', '惊喜', '不错的', '油耗低', '油耗真心棒', '省油不少 ', - '胜出', '确实省', '很满意'], - '空间': ['好', '非常好', '喜欢', '还可以', '差不多', '空间很满意', '大空间', '后备箱大', - '空间较大', '空间/后座又宽，', '容量大', '挺大', '空间大很多', '都不错', '各方面都好些', - '杀手锏', '是大的', '车体高', '很漂亮', '甩三条街', '还行', '不错', '变大', '大 ', - '杠杠的', '满足', '更好', '坐进去最放松的', '空间坐姿都好点', '空间不小', '舒服', - '宽大舒适', '不小', '大', '高点', '理想', '车内空间蛮大', '空间舒适没的说', - '动力和空间太诱惑了！', '空间大动力可以', '较大后备箱', '够用', - '不为别的，就为了中控台和空间', '空间大', '特大', '比森林人舒服多了', - '相当的可以', '大了很多', '更方便', '空间有点', '舒服的很', '有保障', '有优势', - '空间也大', '挺好的', '出色', '实用', '空间更大', '轴距也加长了更宽敞了', - '好些', '胜出', '宽敞', '均衡'], - '舒适性': ['提升太多', '满意', '坐姿高视线更好', '风力强劲', '好', '还可以', '非常好', '安静', - '噪音低', '好听', '可以', '蛮好', '噪音减少', '好用', '感觉不错', '看中座椅记忆', - '视野超级好，调好座椅秒杀一切SUV', '提高很多', '乘客舒适', '恒温', '制冷效果好', - '制冷快', '不错', '分区空调', '厉害', '视野好', '空间坐姿都好点', '噪音小', '舒服', - '很好用', '空调很牛逼', '给力', '空间舒适没的说', '有点提升', '静音', '空间舒适', - '高', '空间大', '舒服安静', '视野和通过性好', '好点', '静音舒适', - '可以了']} - - # configuration for `vdcnn` model, a very deep convolution neural network - self.vd_depth = [4, 4, 10, 10] # number of conv blocks with 64, 128, 256 & 512 filters, must be a list - self.vd_pooling_type = 'maxpool' # 3 different pooling types for halving the temporal resolution - self.vd_use_shortcut = False # whether use shortcut connection between conv blocks - # self.use_he_uniform = True # whether use he_uniform initializer - - self.merge_for_each = True - - # configuration for word embedding strategy - self.embed_all_words = True - self.optional_embed_types = ['w2vcu', 'fasttextcu', 'w2vcu_all', 'fasttextcu_all', 'glovecu', 'glovecu_all', - 'fasttextpred', 'fasttextpred_all', 'zhw2vpred', 'zhw2vpred_all', - 'tencentvpred', 'tencentvpred_all'] - - self.embed_type = self.optional_embed_types[3] - self.embed_trainable = True - - # self.embed_type = ['w2vcu_all', 'w2vcu_all'] - # self.embed_trainable = [True, False] - - self.word_combine_char = False - self.max_chars_per_word = 6 - - self.use_class_weight = True - self.class_weight = {0: 1., 1: 10., 2: 1., 3: 10.} - - # configuration for predict file - self.predict_with_rules = False - self.predict_with_content = False - - self.add_word_feats = False - self.num_word_feats = 0 - self.add_sentence_feat = False - self.num_sent_feats = 0 - - self.n_pos = 24 - self.pos_to_id = {'a': 0, 'ad': 0, 'ag': 0, 'an': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'df': 3, 'dg': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, - 'g': 6, 'h': 7, 'i': 8, 'j': 9, 'k': 10, 'l': 11, 'm': 12, 'mg': 12, 'mq': 12, 'n': 13, - 'ng': 13, 'nr': 13, 'nrfg': 13, 'nrt': 13, 'ns': 13, 'nt': 13, 'nz': 13, 'o': 14, 'p': 15, - 'q': 16, 'r': 17, 'rg': 17, 'rr': 17, 'rz': 17, 's': 18, 't': 18, 'tg': 18, 'u': 19, 'ud': 19, - 'ug': 19, 'uj': 19, 'ul': 19, 'uv': 19, 'uz': 19, 'v': 20, 'vd': 20, 'vg': 20, - 'vi': 20, 'vn': 20, 'vq': 20, 'x': 21, 'y': 22, 'z': 23, 'zg': 23} - - with codecs.open('lexicon/deny.txt', 'r', encoding='utf8') as reader: - self.deny_lexicon = [line.strip() for line in reader] - - self.feat_all = False # use word features based on all data set(True) or just on train data set(False) - - self.ensemble_model_type = None - self.ensemble_input_len = 0 - self.ensemble_input_feat = ['model', 'tfidf', 'sen_feat', 'embed_avg'] - - def one_hot_encoding(self, model_type, label): - if model_type == 'aspect': # aspect classification model - label = list(label) - return np.array([0 if value == -2 else 1 for value in label], dtype=int) # multi-label - elif model_type == 'senti': # sentiment analysis model - one_hot_vector = np.zeros(self.n_class[model_type], dtype=int) - one_hot_vector[self.senti_polarity_to_class[label]] = 1 - return one_hot_vector - elif model_type == 'joint': # join model - label = list(label) - multi_hot_vector = np.zeros(self.n_class[model_type], dtype=int) - for i in range(len(label)): - multi_hot_vector[i * (self.n_senti_class + 1) + self.joint_polarity_to_class[label[i]]] = 1 - return multi_hot_vector - return None diff --git a/model/layers.py b/model/layers.py deleted file mode 100644 index c4f7818..0000000 --- a/model/layers.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,290 +0,0 @@ -# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- - -import math -from keras import backend as K, initializers, regularizers, constraints -from keras.engine.topology import Layer -import tensorflow as tf -from tensorflow.contrib.framework import sort - - -# modified based on https://gist.github.com/cbaziotis/7ef97ccf71cbc14366835198c09809d2 -class Attention(Layer): - """ - Attention operation, with a context/query vector, for temporal data. - Supports Masking. - Follows the work of Yang et al. [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~diyiy/docs/naacl16.pdf] - "Hierarchical Attention Networks for Document Classification" - by using a context vector to assist the attention - # Input shape - 3D tensor with shape: `(samples, steps, features)`. - # Output shape - 2D tensor with shape: `(samples, features)`. - How to use: - Just put it on top of an RNN Layer (GRU/LSTM/SimpleRNN) with return_sequences=True. - The dimensions are inferred based on the output shape of the RNN. - e: The layer has been tested with Keras 2.0.6 - Example: - model.add(LSTM(64, return_sequences=True)) - model.add(AttentionWithContext()) - # next add a Dense layer (for classification/regression) or whatever... - """ - - def __init__(self, W_regularizer=None, u_regularizer=None, b_regularizer=None, W_constraint=None, - u_constraint=None, b_constraint=None, bias=False, return_score=False, **kwargs): - self.supports_masking = True - self.return_score = return_score - - self.init = initializers.get('glorot_uniform') - - self.W_regularizer = regularizers.get(W_regularizer) - self.u_regularizer = regularizers.get(u_regularizer) - self.b_regularizer = regularizers.get(b_regularizer) - - self.W_constraint = constraints.get(W_constraint) - self.u_constraint = constraints.get(u_constraint) - self.b_constraint = constraints.get(b_constraint) - - self.bias = bias - super(Attention, self).__init__(**kwargs) - - def build(self, input_shape): - assert len(input_shape) == 3 - - self.W = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1], input_shape[-1],), - initializer=self.init, - name='{}_W'.format(self.name), - regularizer=self.W_regularizer, - constraint=self.W_constraint) - if self.bias: - self.b = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1],), - initializer='zero', - name='{}_b'.format(self.name), - regularizer=self.b_regularizer, - constraint=self.b_constraint) - - self.u = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1],), - initializer=self.init, - name='{}_u'.format(self.name), - regularizer=self.u_regularizer, - constraint=self.u_constraint) - - super(Attention, self).build(input_shape) - - def compute_mask(self, input, input_mask=None): - # do not pass the mask to the next layers - return None - - def call(self, x, mask=None): - uit = K.dot(x, self.W) - - if self.bias: - uit += self.b - - uit = K.tanh(uit) - ait = Attention.dot_product(uit, self.u) - - a = K.exp(ait) - - # apply mask after the exp. will be re-normalized next - if mask is not None: - # Cast the mask to floatX to avoid float64 upcasting in theano - a *= K.cast(mask, K.floatx()) - - # in some cases especially in the early stages of training the sum may be almost zero - # and this results in NaN's. A workaround is to add a very small positive number ε to the sum. - # a /= K.cast(K.sum(a, axis=1, keepdims=True), K.floatx()) - a /= K.cast(K.sum(a, axis=1, keepdims=True) + K.epsilon(), K.floatx()) - - a = K.expand_dims(a) - weighted_input = x * a - - if self.return_score: - return K.sum(weighted_input, axis=1), a - else: - return K.sum(weighted_input, axis=1) - - def compute_output_shape(self, input_shape): - if self.return_score: - return [(input_shape[0], input_shape[-1]), (input_shape[0], input_shape[1])] - return input_shape[0], input_shape[-1] - - @staticmethod - def dot_product(x, kernel): - """ - Wrapper for dot product operation, in order to be compatible with both - Theano and Tensorflow - Args: - x (): input - kernel (): weights - Returns: - """ - if K.backend() == 'tensorflow': - return K.squeeze(K.dot(x, K.expand_dims(kernel)), axis=-1) - else: - return K.dot(x, kernel) - - -class RecurrentAttention(Layer): - """ - Multiple attentions non-linearly combined with a recurrent neural network (gru) . - Supports Masking. - Follows the work of Peng et al. [http://aclweb.org/anthology/D17-1047] - "Recurrent Attention Network on Memory for Aspect Sentiment Analysis" - """ - - def __init__(self, units, n_hop=5, return_scores=False, initializer='orthogonal', regularizer=None, constraint=None, **kwargs): - self.units = units - self.n_hop = n_hop - self.return_scores = return_scores - - self.initializer = initializers.get(initializer) - self.regularizer = regularizers.get(regularizer) - self.constraint = constraints.get(constraint) - - self.supports_masking = True - super(RecurrentAttention, self).__init__(**kwargs) - - def build(self, input_shape): - if len(input_shape) != 3: - raise Exception('Input to RecurrentAttention must be a 3D tensor.') - - # gru weights - self.gru_wr = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1], self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_wr'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.gru_ur = self.add_weight((self.units, self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_ur'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.gru_wz = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1], self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_wz'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.gru_uz = self.add_weight((self.units, self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_uz'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.gru_wx = self.add_weight((input_shape[-1], self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_wx'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.gru_wg = self.add_weight((self.units, self.units), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_wg'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - - # attention weights - self.al_w = self.add_weight((self.n_hop, input_shape[-1]+self.units, 1), initializer=self.initializer, - name='{}_al_w'.format(self.name), regularizer=self.regularizer, - constraint=self.constraint) - self.al_b = self.add_weight((self.n_hop, 1), initializer='zero', name='{}_al_b'.format(self.name), - regularizer=self.regularizer, constraint=self.constraint) - - super(RecurrentAttention, self).build(input_shape) - - def call(self, inputs, mask=None): - scores = [] - batch_size = K.shape(inputs)[0] - time_steps = K.shape(inputs)[1] - e = K.zeros(shape=(batch_size, self.units)) - for h in range(self.n_hop): - # compute attention weight - repeat_e = K.repeat(e, time_steps) # [batch_size, time_steps, units] - inputs_concat = K.concatenate([inputs, repeat_e], axis=-1) # [batch_size, time_steps, hidden+units] - g = K.squeeze(K.dot(inputs_concat, self.al_w[h]), axis=-1) + self.al_b[h] # [batch_size, time_steps] - a = K.exp(g) - - # apply mask after the exp. will be re-normalized next - if mask is not None: - a *= K.cast(mask, K.floatx()) - - a /= K.cast(K.sum(a, axis=-1, keepdims=True) + K.epsilon(), K.floatx()) - scores.append(a) - - # apply attention - a = K.expand_dims(a) # [batch_size, time_steps, 1] - i_AL = K.sum(inputs * a, axis=1) # [batch_size, hidden], i_AL is the input of gru at time `h` - - # gru implementation - r = K.sigmoid(K.dot(i_AL, self.gru_wr) + K.dot(e, self.gru_ur)) # reset gate - z = K.sigmoid(K.dot(i_AL, self.gru_wz) + K.dot(e, self.gru_uz)) # update gate - _e = K.tanh(K.dot(i_AL, self.gru_wx) + K.dot(r*e, self.gru_wg)) - e = (1 - z) * e + z * _e # update e - - if self.return_scores: - return e, K.concatenate(scores, axis=0) - else: - return e - - def compute_mask(self, inputs, mask=None): - return None - - def compute_output_shape(self, input_shape): - if self.return_scores: - return [(input_shape[0], self.units), (self.n_hop, input_shape[0], input_shape[1])] - else: - return input_shape[0], self.units - - -class KMaxPooling(Layer): - """ - Implemetation of temporal k-max pooling layer, which was first proposed in Kalchbrenner et al. - [http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P14-1062] - "A Convolutional Neural Network for Modelling Sentences" - This layer allows to detect the k most important features in a sentence, independent of their - specific position, preserving their relative order. - """ - def __init__(self, k=1, **kwargs): - self.k = k - - super(KMaxPooling, self).__init__(**kwargs) - - def build(self, input_shape): - if len(input_shape) != 3: - raise ValueError('Input into KMaxPooling muse be a 3D tensor!') - if self.k > input_shape[1]: - raise ValueError('detect `%d` most important features from `%d` timesteps is not allowed' % - (self.k, input_shape[1])) - super(KMaxPooling, self).build(input_shape) - - def call(self, inputs): - """ - Reference: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51299181/how-to-implement-k-max-pooling-in-tensorflow-or-keras - The key point is preserving the relative order - """ - permute_inputs = K.permute_dimensions(inputs, (0, 2, 1)) - flat_permute_inputs = tf.reshape(permute_inputs, (-1,)) - topk_indices = sort(tf.nn.top_k(permute_inputs, k=self.k)[1]) - - all_indices = tf.reshape(tf.range(K.shape(flat_permute_inputs)[0]), K.shape(permute_inputs)) - to_sum_indices = tf.expand_dims(tf.gather(all_indices, 0, axis=-1), axis=-1) - topk_indices += to_sum_indices - - flat_topk_indices = tf.reshape(topk_indices, (-1, )) - topk_output = tf.reshape(tf.gather(flat_permute_inputs, flat_topk_indices), K.shape(topk_indices)) - - return K.permute_dimensions(topk_output, (0, 2, 1)) - - def compute_output_shape(self, input_shape): - return input_shape[0], self.k, input_shape[-1] - - -class Folding(Layer): - def __init__(self, **kwargs): - super(Folding, self).__init__(**kwargs) - - def build(self, input_shape): - if len(input_shape) != 3: - raise ValueError('Input into Folding Layer must be a 3D tensor!') - super(Folding, self).build(input_shape) - - def call(self, inputs): - # split the tensor along dimension 2 into dimension_axis_size/2 - # which will give us 2 tensors. - # will raise ValueError if K.int_shape(inputs) is odd - splits = tf.split(inputs, int(K.int_shape(inputs)[-1] / 2), axis=-1) - - # reduce sums of the pair of rows we have split onto - reduce_sums = [tf.reduce_sum(split, axis=-1) for split in splits] - - # stack them up along the same axis we have reduced - row_reduced = tf.stack(reduce_sums, axis=-1) - return row_reduced - - def compute_output_shape(self, input_shape): - return input_shape[0], input_shape[1], int(input_shape[2] / 2) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/model/models.py b/model/models.py deleted file mode 100644 index b5f2e24..0000000 --- a/model/models.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1375 +0,0 @@ -# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- - -import os -import math -import numpy as np -import tensorflow as tf - -from keras.models import Model -from keras.layers import Input, Embedding, SpatialDropout1D, Dropout, Conv1D, MaxPool1D, Flatten, concatenate, Dense, \ - LSTM, Bidirectional, Activation, MaxPooling1D, Add, GRU, GlobalAveragePooling1D, GlobalMaxPooling1D, RepeatVector, \ - TimeDistributed, Permute, multiply, Lambda, add, Masking, BatchNormalization, Softmax, \ - Reshape, ReLU, ZeroPadding1D -from keras.preprocessing.sequence import pad_sequences -from keras.callbacks import Callback, ModelCheckpoint, EarlyStopping -import keras.backend as K - -from layers import Attention, RecurrentAttention, RecurrentCNN, KMaxPooling, Folding -from utils import get_score_joint, get_score_aspect, get_score_senti, pad_sequences_2d - - -# TODO: refactor the code - -# callback for aspect model -class AspectModelMetrics(Callback): - def __init__(self): - super(AspectModelMetrics, self).__init__() - - def on_train_begin(self, logs={}): - self.val_f1s_macro = [] - - def on_epoch_end(self, epoch, logs={}): - valid_results = self.model.predict(self.validation_data[0]) - _val_f1_macro = get_score_aspect(self.validation_data[1], valid_results) - logs['val_f1_macro'] = _val_f1_macro - self.val_f1s_macro.append(_val_f1_macro) - print('val_f1_macro: %f' % _val_f1_macro) - return - - -# model for aspect classification -class AspectModel(object): - def __init__(self, config, train_data, valid_data, test_text, test_label=None): - self.config = config - self.weights = np.load('data/%s_embeddings.npy' % self.config.level) - self.n_class = self.config.n_aspect - self.max_len = self.config.max_len[self.config.level] - self.lstm_units = 128 - - self.x_train, self.y_train = train_data - self.y_train = np.array(self.y_train) - self.x_valid, self.y_valid = valid_data - self.y_valid = np.array(self.y_valid) - self.x_test = test_text - - if test_label is not None: - self.has_test_label = True - self.y_test = np.array(test_label) - else: - self.has_test_label = False - self.y_test = None - - self.callbacks = [] - self.init_callbacks() - - self.model = None - if isinstance(self.config.aspect_model_type, list): - self.build_merged_model(self.config.aspect_model_type) - else: - self.build_model(self.config.aspect_model_type) - - def pad_sequences(self, input_seq): - if self.config.aspect_model_type == 'han': - return pad_sequences_2d(input_seq, max_sents=self.config.han_max_sent, - max_words=self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level]) - else: - return pad_sequences(input_seq, maxlen=self.max_len) - - def init_callbacks(self): - self.callbacks.append(AspectModelMetrics()) - self.callbacks.append( - EarlyStopping( - monitor=self.config.early_stopping_monitor, - patience=self.config.early_stopping_patience, - mode=self.config.early_stopping_mode - ) - ) - self.callbacks.append( - ModelCheckpoint( - filepath=os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name), - monitor=self.config.checkpoint_monitor, - mode=self.config.checkpoint_mode, - save_best_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_best_only, - save_weights_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_weights_only, - verbose=self.config.checkpoint_verbose, - ) - ) - - def build_base_network(self, aspect_model_type): - if aspect_model_type == 'cnn': - base_network = self.cnn() - elif aspect_model_type == 'multicnn': - base_network = self.multi_cnn() - elif aspect_model_type == 'bilstm': - base_network = self.bilstm() - elif aspect_model_type == 'dpcnn': - base_network = self.dpcnn() - elif aspect_model_type == 'rnncnn': - base_network = self.rnncnn() - elif aspect_model_type == 'han': - base_network = self.han() - elif aspect_model_type == 'rcnn': - base_network = self.rcnn() - elif aspect_model_type == 'rcnn1': - base_network = self.rcnn_1() - elif aspect_model_type == 'vdcnn': - base_network = self.vdcnn(self.config.vd_depth, self.config.vd_pooling_type, self.config.vd_use_shortcut) - elif aspect_model_type == 'dcnn': - base_network = self.dcnn() - else: - raise Exception('Aspect Model Type `%s` Not Understood' % aspect_model_type) - return base_network - - def build_model(self, aspect_model_type): - base_network = self.build_base_network(aspect_model_type) - - if aspect_model_type == 'han': - input_text = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level])) - else: - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - vector_text = base_network(input_text) - dense_layer = Dense(256, activation='relu')(vector_text) - - output_layer = Dense(self.n_class, activation='sigmoid')(dense_layer) - - # multi-label classification - self.model = Model(input_text, output_layer) - self.model.compile(loss='binary_crossentropy', metrics=['acc'], optimizer=self.config.optimizer) - - def build_merged_model(self, aspect_model_types): - if len(aspect_model_types) <= 1: - raise ValueError('Models less than 2: `{}`'.format(aspect_model_types)) - - models = [] - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - for aspect_model_type in aspect_model_types: - if aspect_model_type == 'han': - raise ValueError('han model is not supoorted!') - base_network = self.build_base_network(aspect_model_type) - - vector_text = base_network(input_text) - dense_layer = Dense(256, activation='relu')(vector_text) - - output_layer = Dense(self.n_class, activation='sigmoid')(dense_layer) - models.append(output_layer) - - weighted_predict = self.weighted_merge(len(models), self.n_class)(concatenate(models, axis=-1)) - - # multi-label classification - self.model = Model(input_text, weighted_predict) - self.model.compile(loss='binary_crossentropy', metrics=['acc'], optimizer=self.config.optimizer) - - def train(self): - x_train_pad = self.pad_sequences(self.x_train) - x_valid_pad = self.pad_sequences(self.x_valid) - - print('training...') - self.model.fit(x_train_pad, self.y_train, epochs=self.config.num_epochs, batch_size=self.config.batch_size, - validation_data=(x_valid_pad, self.y_valid), callbacks=self.callbacks) - print('training end...') - - print('score over valid data:') - valid_pred = self.model.predict(x_valid_pad) - get_score_aspect(self.y_valid, valid_pred) - - def load(self): - print("Loading model checkpoint {} ...\n".format('%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name)) - self.model.load_weights(os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name)) - print("Model loaded") - - def score(self, input_data, label): - input_data_pad = self.pad_sequences(input_data) - pred = self.model.predict(input_data_pad) - get_score_aspect(label, pred) - - def predict(self, input_data, threshold=0.5): - input_data_pad = self.pad_sequences(input_data) - y_pred = self.model.predict(input_data_pad) - y_pred = np.array([[1 if y_pred[i, j] >= threshold else -2 for j in range(y_pred.shape[1])] - for i in range(y_pred.shape[0])]) - return y_pred - - def cnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - filter_lengths = [2, 3, 4, 5] - conv_layers = [] - for filter_length in filter_lengths: - conv_layer = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, padding='valid', - strides=1, activation='relu')(embedding_layer) - maxpooling = MaxPool1D(pool_size=self.max_len - filter_length + 1)(conv_layer) - flatten = Flatten()(maxpooling) - conv_layers.append(flatten) - concatenate_layer = concatenate(inputs=conv_layers) - return Model(input_text, concatenate_layer) - - def multi_cnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - filter_lengths = [2, 3, 4, 5] - conv_layers = [] - for filter_length in filter_lengths: - conv_layer_1 = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, strides=1, - padding='valid', activation='relu')(embedding_layer) - bn_layer_1 = BatchNormalization()(conv_layer_1) - conv_layer_2 = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, strides=1, - padding='valid', activation='relu')(bn_layer_1) - bn_layer_2 = BatchNormalization()(conv_layer_2) - maxpooling = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=self.max_len - 2*filter_length + 2)(bn_layer_2) - flatten = Flatten()(maxpooling) - conv_layers.append(flatten) - concatenate_layer = concatenate(conv_layers) - return Model(input_text, concatenate_layer) - - def bilstm(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - bilstm_layer = Bidirectional(LSTM(128))(embedding_layer) - dropout = Dropout(self.config.dropout)(bilstm_layer) - - return Model(input_text, dropout) - - def dpcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - repeat = 3 - size = self.max_len - region_x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(embedding_layer) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(region_x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Add()([x, region_x]) - - for _ in range(repeat): - px = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=3, strides=2, padding='same')(x) - size = int((size + 1) / 2) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(px) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Add()([x, px]) - - x = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=size)(x) - x = Flatten()(x) - - return Model(input_text, x) - - # end to end rnncnn - def rnncnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - x = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - x = Bidirectional(GRU(100, return_sequences=True))(x) - - x = Conv1D(64, kernel_size=2, padding="valid", kernel_initializer="he_uniform")(x) - avg_pool = GlobalAveragePooling1D()(x) - max_pool = GlobalMaxPooling1D()(x) - conc = concatenate([avg_pool, max_pool]) - - return Model(input_text, conc) - - def han(self): - def word_encoder(): - input_words = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level],)) - word_vectors = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights], mask_zero=True)(input_words) - sent_encoded = Bidirectional(GRU(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(word_vectors) - return Model(input_words, sent_encoded) - - def sentence_encoder(): - input_sents = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.lstm_units*2)) - sents_masked = Masking()(input_sents) # support masking - doc_encoded = Bidirectional(GRU(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(sents_masked) - return Model(input_sents, doc_encoded) - - input_text = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level])) - sent_encoded = TimeDistributed(word_encoder())(input_text) # word encoder - sent_vectors = TimeDistributed(Attention(bias=True))(sent_encoded) # word attention - doc_encoded = sentence_encoder()(sent_vectors) # sentence encoder - doc_vector = Attention(bias=True)(doc_encoded) # sentence attention - - return Model(input_text, doc_vector) - - # my implementation of recurrent convolution neural network - # ValueError: An operation has `None` for gradient. - # Please make sure that all of your ops have a gradient defined (i.e. are differentiable) - def rcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights], - mask_zero=True)(input_text) - x = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - x = RecurrentCNN(units=self.lstm_units)(x) - - x = TimeDistributed(Dense(self.lstm_units, activation='tanh'))(x) # equation (4) - max_pool = GlobalMaxPooling1D()(x) # equation (5) - - return Model(input_text, max_pool) - - # implementation of recurrent convolution neural network I found from github (slightly modified) - # see https://github.com/airalcorn2/Recurrent-Convolutional-Neural-Network-Text-Classifier - def rcnn_1(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - - doc_embedding = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - # We shift the document to the right to obtain the left-side contexts - l_embedding = Lambda(lambda x: K.concatenate([K.zeros(shape=(K.shape(x)[0], 1, K.shape(x)[-1])), - x[:, :-1]], axis=1))(doc_embedding) - # We shift the document to the left to obtain the right-side contexts - r_embedding = Lambda(lambda x: K.concatenate([K.zeros(shape=(K.shape(x)[0], 1, K.shape(x)[-1])), - x[:, 1:]], axis=1))(doc_embedding) - - # use LSTM RNNs instead of vanilla RNNs as described in the paper. - forward = LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True)(l_embedding) # See equation (1) - backward = LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True, go_backwards=True)(r_embedding) # See equation (2) - # Keras returns the output sequences in reverse order. - backward = Lambda(lambda x: K.reverse(x, axes=1))(backward) - together = concatenate([forward, doc_embedding, backward], axis=2) # See equation (3). - - # use conv1D instead of TimeDistributed and Dense - semantic = Conv1D(self.lstm_units, kernel_size=1, activation="tanh")(together) # See equation (4). - - pool_rnn = Lambda(lambda x: K.max(x, axis=1))(semantic) # See equation (5). - - return Model(input_text, pool_rnn) - - # implementation of very deep convolution neural network - # Reference: https://github.com/zonetrooper32/VDCNN/tree/tensorflow_version (modified) - def vdcnn(self, depth, pooling_type, use_shortcut): - def conv_block(inputs, filters, use_shortcut, shortcut): - conv_1 = Conv1D(filters=filters, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(inputs) - bn_1 = BatchNormalization()(conv_1) - relu_1 = ReLU()(bn_1) - conv_2 = Conv1D(filters=filters, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(relu_1) - bn_2 = BatchNormalization()(conv_2) - relu_2 = ReLU()(bn_2) - - if shortcut is not None and use_shortcut: - return Add()([inputs, shortcut]) - else: - return relu_2 - - def dowm_sampling(inputs, pooling_type, use_shortcut, shortcut): - if pooling_type == 'kmaxpool': - k = math.ceil(K.int_shape(inputs)[1] / 2) - pool = KMaxPooling(k)(inputs) - elif pooling_type == 'maxpool': - pool = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=3, strides=2, padding='same')(inputs) - elif pooling_type == 'conv': - pool = Conv1D(filters=K.int_shape(inputs)[-1], kernel_size=3, strides=2, - kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(inputs) - else: - raise ValueError('pooling_type `{}` not understood'.format(pooling_type)) - if shortcut is not None and use_shortcut: - shortcut = Conv1D(filters=K.int_shape(inputs)[-1], kernel_size=3, strides=2, - kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(shortcut) - return Add()([pool, shortcut]) - else: - return pool - - if not isinstance(depth, list) or len(depth) != 4: - raise ValueError('depth must be a list of 4 integer, got `{}`'.format(depth)) - if pooling_type not in ['conv', 'maxpool', 'kmaxpool']: - raise ValueError('pooling_type `{}` not understood'.format(pooling_type)) - - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - - # Lookup table - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - # first temporal conv layer - conv_out = Conv1D(filters=64, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(text_embed) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 64 - for i in range(depth[0]): - if i < depth[0] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=64, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=64, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - # shortcut is the second last conv block output - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 128 - for i in range(depth[1]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 256 - for i in range(depth[2]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=256, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=256, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - - # temporal conv block: 512 - for i in range(depth[3]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # 8-max pooling - conv_out = KMaxPooling(k=8)(conv_out) - flatten = Flatten()(conv_out) - - fc1 = Dense(2048, activation='relu')(flatten) - fc2 = Dense(2048, activation='relu')(fc1) - - return Model(input_text, fc2) - - # implementation of dynamic convolution network - def dcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_1 = ZeroPadding1D((6, 6))(text_embed) - conv_1 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=7, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_1) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_1 = KMaxPooling(int(self.max_len / 3 * 2))(conv_1) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_1 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_1) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_2 = ZeroPadding1D((4, 4))(non_linear_1) - conv_2 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=5, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_2) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_2 = KMaxPooling(int(self.max_len / 3 * 1))(conv_2) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_2 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_2) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_3 = ZeroPadding1D((2, 2))(non_linear_2) - conv_3 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=5, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_3) - # folding - folded = Folding()(conv_3) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_3 = KMaxPooling(k=10)(folded) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_3 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_3) - - flatten = Flatten()(non_linear_3) - - return Model(input_text, flatten) - - # weighted merge models - @staticmethod - def weighted_merge(n_model, n_dim): - """ - compute a weighted output from multiple parallel models using softmax layer - Input: concatenate of `n_model` parallel models - """ - model_concat = Input(shape=(n_model*n_dim, )) - - weights = Dense(n_model, activation='softmax')(model_concat) - weights_expand = Lambda(lambda x: K.expand_dims(x, axis=-1))(weights) # [batch_size, n_model, 1] - - model_unfold = Reshape((n_model, n_dim))(model_concat) # [batch_size, n_model, n_dim] - weighted_output = multiply([model_unfold, weights_expand]) # [batch_size, n_model, n_dim] - weighted_output = Lambda(lambda x: K.sum(x, axis=1))(weighted_output) # [batch_size, n_dim] - - return Model(model_concat, weighted_output) - - -# callback for sentiment analysis model -class SentiModelMetrics(Callback): - def __init__(self): - super(SentiModelMetrics, self).__init__() - - def on_train_begin(self, logs={}): - self.val_f1s_macro = [] - - def on_epoch_end(self, epoch, logs={}): - valid_results = self.model.predict([self.validation_data[0], self.validation_data[1]]) - _val_f1_macro = get_score_senti(self.validation_data[1], self.validation_data[2], valid_results) - logs['val_f1_macro'] = _val_f1_macro - self.val_f1s_macro.append(_val_f1_macro) - print('val_f1_macro: %f' % _val_f1_macro) - return - - -# model for sentiment analysis -class SentimentModel(object): - def __init__(self, config, train_data, valid_data, test_data, test_label=None): - self.config = config - self.n_class = self.config.n_senti_class - self.max_len = self.config.max_len[self.config.level] - self.weights = np.load('data/%s_embeddings.npy' % self.config.level) - self.lstm_units = 128 - - self.x_train, self.aspect_train, self.y_train = train_data - self.x_train = np.array(self.x_train) - self.aspect_train = np.array(self.aspect_train) - self.y_train = np.array(self.y_train) - - self.x_valid, self.aspect_valid, self.y_valid = valid_data - self.x_valid = np.array(self.x_valid) - self.aspect_valid = np.array(self.aspect_valid) - self.y_valid = np.array(self.y_valid) - - self.x_test, self.aspect_test = test_data - self.x_test = np.array(self.x_test) - self.aspect_test = np.array(self.aspect_test) - - if test_label is not None: - self.has_test_label = True - self.y_test = np.array(test_label) - else: - self.has_test_label = False - - self.callbacks = [] - self.init_callbacks() - - self.model = None - self.build_model(self.config.senti_model_type) - - def init_callbacks(self): - self.callbacks.append(SentiModelMetrics()) - - self.callbacks.append(ModelCheckpoint( - filepath=os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name), - monitor=self.config.checkpoint_monitor, - save_best_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_best_only, - save_weights_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_weights_only, - mode=self.config.checkpoint_mode, - verbose=self.config.checkpoint_verbose - )) - - self.callbacks.append(EarlyStopping( - monitor=self.config.early_stopping_monitor, - mode=self.config.early_stopping_mode, - patience=self.config.early_stopping_patience - )) - - def pad_sequence(self, input_seq): - return pad_sequences(input_seq, maxlen=self.max_len) - - def load(self): - print('loading model checkponit {} ...\n'.format('%s.hdf5') % self.config.exp_name) - self.model.load_weights(os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name)) - print('Model loaded') - - def build_model(self, senti_model_type): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1,), name='input_aspect') - - if senti_model_type == 'at': - base_network = self.at_lstm() - elif senti_model_type == 'atcu': - base_network = self.at_lstm_custom() - elif senti_model_type == 'ae': - base_network = self.ae_lstm() - elif senti_model_type == 'atae': - base_network = self.atae_lstm() - elif senti_model_type == 'memnet': - base_network = self.memnet() - elif senti_model_type == 'ram': - base_network = self.ram() - else: - raise Exception('Senti Model Type `%s` Not Understood' % senti_model_type) - - vector_text = base_network([input_text, input_aspect]) - dense_layer = Dense(256, activation='relu')(vector_text) - - output_layer = Dense(self.n_class, activation='softmax')(dense_layer) - - self.model = Model([input_text, input_aspect], output_layer) - self.model.compile(loss='categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['acc'], optimizer=self.config.optimizer) - - def train(self): - x_train_pad = self.pad_sequence(self.x_train) - x_valid_pad = self.pad_sequence(self.x_valid) - - print('start training...') - self.model.fit(x=[x_train_pad, self.aspect_train], y=self.y_train, batch_size=self.config.batch_size, - epochs=self.config.num_epochs, validation_data=([x_valid_pad, self.aspect_valid], self.y_valid), - callbacks=self.callbacks) - print('training end...') - - print('score over valid data:') - valid_pred = self.model.predict([x_valid_pad, self.aspect_valid]) - get_score_senti(self.aspect_valid, self.y_valid, valid_pred) - - def score(self, input_text, input_aspect, label): - text_pad = self.pad_sequence(input_text) - pred = self.model.predict([text_pad, input_aspect]) - get_score_senti(input_aspect, label, pred) - - def predict(self, input_text, input_aspect): - text_pad = self.pad_sequence(input_text) - pred = self.model.predict([text_pad, input_aspect]) - pred_classes = np.argmax(pred, axis=-1) - # change class to polarity - pred_polaritys = np.array([self.config.senti_class_to_polarity[pred_cls] for pred_cls in pred_classes]) - return pred_polaritys - - # additionally concatenate aspect vector with input sequence vectors, following which a bilstm model's applied. - def ae_lstm(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1, ), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.aspect_embed_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - repeat_aspect = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(aspect_embed) # repeat aspect for every word in sequence - - input_concat = concatenate([text_embed, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) - bilstm_layer = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units))(input_concat) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], bilstm_layer) - - # attention mechanism based bilstm model - # concatenate aspect vector with hidden vectors output by bilstm model, then attention mechanism is applied to - # compute attention weights over hidden vectors (in other words, steps) - def at_lstm(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1,), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.aspect_embed_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - repeat_aspect = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(aspect_embed) # repeat aspect for every word in sequence - - hidden_out = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(text_embed) # hidden vectors output by bilstm - - # compute attention weight for each hidden vector (step), refer to https://aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1058 - concat = concatenate([hidden_out, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) - M = TimeDistributed(Dense(self.config.embedding_dim + self.config.aspect_embed_dim, activation='tanh'))(concat) - attention = TimeDistributed(Dense(1))(M) - attention = Flatten()(attention) - attention = Activation('softmax')(attention) # [batch_size, max_len] - - # apply the attention - repeat_attention = RepeatVector(2*self.lstm_units)(attention) # [batch_size, 2*units, max_len) - repeat_attention = Permute((2, 1))(repeat_attention) # [batch_size, max_len, 2*units] - sent_representation = multiply([hidden_out, repeat_attention]) - sent_representation = Lambda(lambda x: K.sum(x, axis=1))(sent_representation) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], sent_representation) - - # lstm with custom attention layer (considering masking) - def at_lstm_custom(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1,), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights], mask_zero=True)(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.aspect_embed_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - repeat_aspect = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(aspect_embed) # repeat aspect for every word in sequence - - hidden_out = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(text_embed) # hidden vectors output by bilstm - concat = concatenate([hidden_out, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) # mask after concatenate will be same as hidden_out's mask - - # apply attention mechanism - sent_representation = Attention()(concat) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], sent_representation) - - # combine ae_lstm and at_lstm - def atae_lstm(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1,), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.aspect_embed_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - repeat_aspect = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(aspect_embed) # repeat aspect for every word in sequence - - input_concat = concatenate([text_embed, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) - hidden_out = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(input_concat) - - # compute attention weight for each hidden vector (step), refer to https://aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1058 - concat = concatenate([hidden_out, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) - M = TimeDistributed(Dense(self.config.embedding_dim + self.config.aspect_embed_dim, activation='tanh'))(concat) - attention = TimeDistributed(Dense(1))(M) - attention = Flatten()(attention) - attention = Activation('softmax')(attention) # [batch_size, max_len] - - # apply the attention - repeat_attention = RepeatVector(2*self.lstm_units)(attention) # [batch_size, units, max_len) - repeat_attention = Permute((2, 1))(repeat_attention) # [batch_size, max_len, units] - sent_representation = multiply([hidden_out, repeat_attention]) - sent_representation = Lambda(lambda x: K.sum(x, axis=1))(sent_representation) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], sent_representation) - - # deep memory network (here we don't use location attention) - def memnet(self): - n_hop = 2 - - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, ), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1, ), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - - ''' - multi-hop computation layers to learn representation of text with multiple levels of abstraction - here we only apply content attention without location attention - ''' - # the parameter of attention and linear layers are shared in different hops - attention_layer = TimeDistributed(Dense(1, activation='tanh')) - linear_layer = Dense(self.config.embedding_dim, ) - - # output from each computation layer, representing text in different level of abstraction - computation_layers_out = [aspect_embed] - - for h in range(n_hop): - # content attention layer - repeat_out = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(computation_layers_out[-1]) # repeat the last output from last computation layer - concat = concatenate([text_embed, repeat_out], axis=-1) # [batch_size, max_len, 2*embed] - - attention = attention_layer(concat) # [batch_size, max_len, 1] - attention = Flatten()(attention) - attention = Activation('softmax')(attention) # [batch_size, max_len] - repeat_attention = RepeatVector(self.config.embedding_dim)(attention) # [batch_size, embed, max_len) - repeat_attention = Permute((2, 1))(repeat_attention) # [batch_size, max_len, embed] - # apply attention - sent_representation = multiply([text_embed, repeat_attention]) - sent_representation = Lambda(lambda x: K.sum(x, axis=1))(sent_representation) # [batch_size, embed] - - # linear layer - out_linear = linear_layer(computation_layers_out[-1]) # [batch_size, embed] - - computation_layers_out.append(add([sent_representation, out_linear])) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], computation_layers_out[-1]) - - # recurrent attention network on memory (without location weighted memory) - def ram(self): - n_hop = 5 - - # input module - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,), name='input_text') - input_aspect = Input(shape=(1,), name='input_aspect') - - text_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights], mask_zero=True)(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(text_embed) - - aspect_embed = Embedding(input_dim=self.config.n_aspect, output_dim=self.config.aspect_embed_dim)(input_aspect) - aspect_embed = Flatten()(aspect_embed) # reshape to 2d - repeat_aspect = RepeatVector(self.max_len)(aspect_embed) # repeat aspect for every word in sequence - - # memory module - hidden_out_1 = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(text_embed) - hidden_out_2 = Bidirectional(LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(hidden_out_1) - memory = concatenate([hidden_out_2, repeat_aspect], axis=-1) - - # position-weighted memory module: discarded - - # recurrent attention module - sent_representation = RecurrentAttention(units=self.lstm_units, n_hop=n_hop)(memory) - - return Model([input_text, input_aspect], sent_representation) - - """ - models below are not suitable for our task cause aspect tokens are not in the sentences - """ - # target dependent lstm - def td_lstm(self): - pass - - # target connection lstm - def tc_lstm(self): - pass - - # deep memory network with location attention - def memnet_original(self): - pass - - # interactive attention network - def ian(self): - pass - - # ram memory network with location weighted memory - def ram_original(self): - pass - - # implementation of `Content Attention Model for Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis` - def cabasc(self): - pass - - -# callback for joint model -class JointModelMetrics(Callback): - def __init__(self, n_aspect): - self.n_aspect = n_aspect - super(JointModelMetrics, self).__init__() - - def on_train_begin(self, logs={}): - self.val_f1s_macro = [] - - def on_epoch_end(self, epoch, logs={}): - valid_results = self.model.predict(self.validation_data[0]) - _val_f1_macro = get_score_joint(self.validation_data[1:self.n_aspect + 1], valid_results) - logs['val_f1_macro'] = _val_f1_macro - self.val_f1s_macro.append(_val_f1_macro) - print('val_f1_macro: %f' % _val_f1_macro) - return - - -# joint model for aspect classification and sentiment analysis -class JointModel(object): - def __init__(self, config, train_data, valid_data, test_text, test_label=None): - self.config = config - self.weights = np.load('data/%s_embeddings.npy' % self.config.level) - self.n_class = self.config.n_senti_class + 1 - self.max_len = self.config.max_len[self.config.level] - self.lstm_units = 128 - - self.x_train, self.y_train = train_data - self.y_train = np.array(self.y_train) - self.x_valid, self.y_valid = valid_data - self.y_valid = np.array(self.y_valid) - self.x_test = test_text - - if test_label is not None: - self.has_test_label = True - self.y_test = np.array(test_label) - else: - self.has_test_label = False - self.y_test = None - - self.callbacks = [] - self.init_callbacks() - - self.model = None - if isinstance(self.config.joint_model_type, list): - self.build_merged_model(self.config.joint_model_type, self.config.merge_for_each) - else: - self.build_model(self.config.joint_model_type) - - def pad_sequences(self, input_seq): - if self.config.joint_model_type == 'han': - return pad_sequences_2d(input_seq, max_sents=self.config.han_max_sent, - max_words=self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level]) - else: - return pad_sequences(input_seq, maxlen=self.max_len) - - def init_callbacks(self): - self.callbacks.append(JointModelMetrics(self.config.n_aspect)) - self.callbacks.append( - EarlyStopping( - monitor=self.config.early_stopping_monitor, - patience=self.config.early_stopping_patience, - mode=self.config.early_stopping_mode - ) - ) - self.callbacks.append( - ModelCheckpoint( - filepath=os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name), - monitor=self.config.checkpoint_monitor, - mode=self.config.checkpoint_mode, - save_best_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_best_only, - save_weights_only=self.config.checkpoint_save_weights_only, - verbose=self.config.checkpoint_verbose, - ) - ) - - def build_base_network(self, joint_model_type): - if joint_model_type == 'cnn': - base_network = self.cnn() - elif joint_model_type == 'multicnn': - base_network = self.multi_cnn() - elif joint_model_type == 'bilstm': - base_network = self.bilstm() - elif joint_model_type == 'dpcnn': - base_network = self.dpcnn() - elif joint_model_type == 'rnncnn': - base_network = self.rnncnn() - elif joint_model_type == 'han': - base_network = self.han() - elif joint_model_type == 'rcnn': - base_network = self.rcnn() - elif joint_model_type == 'rcnn1': - base_network = self.rcnn_1() - elif joint_model_type == 'vdcnn': - base_network = self.vdcnn(self.config.vd_depth, self.config.vd_pooling_type, self.config.vd_use_shortcut) - elif joint_model_type == 'dcnn': - base_network = self.dcnn() - else: - raise ValueError('Joint Model Type `%s` Not Understood' % joint_model_type) - - return base_network - - def build_model(self, joint_model_type): - base_network = self.build_base_network(joint_model_type) - - if joint_model_type == 'han': - input_text = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level])) - else: - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - vector_text = base_network(input_text) - dense_layer = Dense(256, activation='relu')(vector_text) - - aspect_layers = [] - for aspect_name in self.config.aspect_names: - # we found adding another dense layer for each aspect not helping - # dense_layer_sepc = Dense(128, activation='relu')(dense_layer) - aspect_layers.append(Dense(self.n_class, activation='softmax', name=aspect_name)(dense_layer)) - - self.model = Model(input_text, aspect_layers) - - loss = ['categorical_crossentropy'] * self.config.n_aspect - if self.config.joint_use_loss_weight: - loss_weights = self.config.joint_loss_weight - else: - loss_weights = [1.] * self.config.n_aspect - - self.model.compile(loss=loss, loss_weights=loss_weights, metrics=['accuracy'], optimizer=self.config.optimizer) - - def build_merged_model(self, joint_model_types, merge_for_each): - if len(joint_model_types) <= 1: - raise ValueError('Models less than 2: `{}`'.format(joint_model_types)) - - models = [] - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - for joint_model_type in joint_model_types: - if joint_model_type == 'han': - raise ValueError('han model is not supported') - - base_network = self.build_base_network(joint_model_type) - vector_text = base_network(input_text) - dense_layer = Dense(256, activation='relu')(vector_text) - - aspect_layers = [] - for _ in self.config.aspect_names: - # we found adding another dense layer for each aspect not helping - # dense_layer_sepc = Dense(128, activation='relu')(dense_layer) - aspect_layers.append(Dense(self.n_class, activation='softmax')(dense_layer)) - models.append(aspect_layers) - - n_model = len(models) - if merge_for_each: - weighted_predict = [] - for aspect_predict in zip(*models): - aspect_predict = concatenate(list(aspect_predict), axis=-1) # [batch_size, 4*n_models] - weighted_predict.append(self.weighted_merge(n_model=n_model, n_dim=self.n_class)(aspect_predict)) - else: - models = [concatenate(model_predict, axis=-1) for model_predict in models] - n_aspects = len(self.config.aspect_names) - n_dim = self.n_class * n_aspects - weighted_predict = self.weighted_merge(n_model=n_model, n_dim=n_dim)(concatenate(models, axis=-1)) - - weighted_predict = Lambda(lambda x: list(tf.split(weighted_predict, n_aspects, axis=-1)))(weighted_predict) - - print(len(weighted_predict)) - self.model = Model(input_text, weighted_predict) - - loss = ['categorical_crossentropy'] * self.config.n_aspect - if self.config.joint_use_loss_weight: - loss_weights = self.config.joint_loss_weight - else: - loss_weights = [1.] * self.config.n_aspect - - self.model.compile(loss=loss, loss_weights=loss_weights, metrics=['accuracy'], optimizer=self.config.optimizer) - - def train(self): - x_train_pad = self.pad_sequences(self.x_train) - x_valid_pad = self.pad_sequences(self.x_valid) - y_train_list = [self.y_train[:, i*self.n_class:(i+1)*self.n_class] for i in range(self.config.n_aspect)] - y_valid_list = [self.y_valid[:, i*self.n_class:(i+1)*self.n_class] for i in range(self.config.n_aspect)] - - print('training...') - self.model.fit(x_train_pad, y_train_list, epochs=self.config.num_epochs, batch_size=self.config.batch_size, - validation_data=(x_valid_pad, y_valid_list), callbacks=self.callbacks) - print('training end...') - - print('score over valid data:') - valid_pred = self.model.predict(x_valid_pad) - get_score_joint(y_valid_list, valid_pred) - - def load(self): - print("Loading model checkpoint {} ...\n".format('%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name)) - self.model.load_weights(os.path.join(self.config.checkpoint_dir, '%s.hdf5' % self.config.exp_name)) - print("Model loaded") - - def score(self, input_data, label): - input_data_pad = self.pad_sequences(input_data) - predicts = self.model.predict(input_data_pad) - label_list = [label[:, i*self.n_class:(i+1)*self.n_class] for i in range(self.config.n_aspect)] - get_score_joint(label_list, predicts) - - def predict(self, input_data): - input_data_pad = self.pad_sequences(input_data) - predicts = self.model.predict(input_data_pad) - pred_classes = [np.argmax(pred, axis=-1) for pred in predicts] - # change class to polarity - pred_polaritys = [list(map(self.config.join_class_to_polarity.get, pred_cls)) for pred_cls in pred_classes] - return pred_polaritys - - def cnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - filter_lengths = [2, 3, 4, 5] - conv_layers = [] - for filter_length in filter_lengths: - conv_layer = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, padding='valid', - strides=1, activation='relu')(embedding_layer) - maxpooling = MaxPool1D(pool_size=self.max_len - filter_length + 1)(conv_layer) - flatten = Flatten()(maxpooling) - conv_layers.append(flatten) - concatenate_layer = concatenate(inputs=conv_layers) - return Model(input_text, concatenate_layer) - - def multi_cnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - filter_lengths = [2, 3, 4, 5] - conv_layers = [] - for filter_length in filter_lengths: - conv_layer_1 = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, strides=1, - padding='valid', activation='relu')(embedding_layer) - bn_layer_1 = BatchNormalization()(conv_layer_1) - conv_layer_2 = Conv1D(filters=300, kernel_size=filter_length, strides=1, - padding='valid', activation='relu')(bn_layer_1) - bn_layer_2 = BatchNormalization()(conv_layer_2) - maxpooling = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=self.max_len - 2*filter_length + 2)(bn_layer_2) - flatten = Flatten()(maxpooling) - conv_layers.append(flatten) - concatenate_layer = concatenate(conv_layers) - return Model(input_text, concatenate_layer) - - def bilstm(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - bilstm_layer = Bidirectional(LSTM(128))(embedding_layer) - dropout = Dropout(self.config.dropout)(bilstm_layer) - - return Model(input_text, dropout) - - def dpcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - embedding_layer = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - repeat = 3 - size = self.max_len - region_x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(embedding_layer) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(region_x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Add()([x, region_x]) - - for _ in range(repeat): - px = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=3, strides=2, padding='same')(x) - size = int((size + 1) / 2) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(px) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Activation(activation='relu')(x) - x = Conv1D(filters=250, kernel_size=3, padding='same', strides=1)(x) - x = Add()([x, px]) - - x = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=size)(x) - x = Flatten()(x) - - return Model(input_text, x) - - def rnncnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len,)) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - x = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - x = Bidirectional(GRU(100, return_sequences=True))(x) - - x = Conv1D(64, kernel_size=2, padding="valid", kernel_initializer="he_uniform")(x) - avg_pool = GlobalAveragePooling1D()(x) - max_pool = GlobalMaxPooling1D()(x) - conc = concatenate([avg_pool, max_pool]) - - return Model(input_text, conc) - - def han(self): - def word_encoder(): - input_words = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level],)) - word_vectors = Embedding(input_dim=self.weights.shape[0], output_dim=self.config.embedding_dim, - weights=[self.weights], mask_zero=True)(input_words) - sent_encoded = Bidirectional(GRU(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(word_vectors) - return Model(input_words, sent_encoded) - - def sentence_encoder(): - input_sents = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.lstm_units*2)) - sents_masked = Masking()(input_sents) # support masking - doc_encoded = Bidirectional(GRU(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True))(sents_masked) - return Model(input_sents, doc_encoded) - - input_text = Input(shape=(self.config.han_max_sent, self.config.han_max_sent_len[self.config.level])) - sent_encoded = TimeDistributed(word_encoder())(input_text) # word encoder - sent_vectors = TimeDistributed(Attention(bias=True))(sent_encoded) # word attention - doc_encoded = sentence_encoder()(sent_vectors) # sentence encoder - doc_vector = Attention(bias=True)(doc_encoded) # sentence attention - - return Model(input_text, doc_vector) - - # my implementation of recurrent convolution neural network - # ValueError: An operation has `None` for gradient. - # Please make sure that all of your ops have a gradient defined (i.e. are differentiable) - def rcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights], - mask_zero=True)(input_text) - x = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - x = RecurrentCNN(units=self.lstm_units)(x) - - x = TimeDistributed(Dense(self.lstm_units, activation='tanh'))(x) # equation (4) - max_pool = GlobalMaxPooling1D()(x) # equation (5) - - return Model(input_text, max_pool) - - # implementation of recurrent convolution neural network I found from github (slightly modified) - # see https://github.com/airalcorn2/Recurrent-Convolutional-Neural-Network-Text-Classifier - def rcnn_1(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - - doc_embedding = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - # We shift the document to the right to obtain the left-side contexts - l_embedding = Lambda(lambda x: K.concatenate([K.zeros(shape=(K.shape(x)[0], 1, K.shape(x)[-1])), - x[:, :-1]], axis=1))(doc_embedding) - # We shift the document to the left to obtain the right-side contexts - r_embedding = Lambda(lambda x: K.concatenate([K.zeros(shape=(K.shape(x)[0], 1, K.shape(x)[-1])), - x[:, 1:]], axis=1))(doc_embedding) - - # use LSTM RNNs instead of vanilla RNNs as described in the paper. - forward = LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True)(l_embedding) # See equation (1) - backward = LSTM(self.lstm_units, return_sequences=True, go_backwards=True)(r_embedding) # See equation (2) - # Keras returns the output sequences in reverse order. - backward = Lambda(lambda x: K.reverse(x, axes=1))(backward) - together = concatenate([forward, doc_embedding, backward], axis=2) # See equation (3). - - # use conv1D instead of TimeDistributed and Dense - semantic = Conv1D(self.lstm_units, kernel_size=1, activation="tanh")(together) # See equation (4). - - pool_rnn = Lambda(lambda x: K.max(x, axis=1))(semantic) # See equation (5). - - return Model(input_text, pool_rnn) - - # implementation of very deep convolution neural network - # Reference: https://github.com/zonetrooper32/VDCNN/tree/tensorflow_version (modified) - def vdcnn(self, depth, pooling_type, use_shortcut): - def conv_block(inputs, filters, use_shortcut, shortcut): - conv_1 = Conv1D(filters=filters, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(inputs) - bn_1 = BatchNormalization()(conv_1) - relu_1 = ReLU()(bn_1) - conv_2 = Conv1D(filters=filters, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(relu_1) - bn_2 = BatchNormalization()(conv_2) - relu_2 = ReLU()(bn_2) - - if shortcut is not None and use_shortcut: - return Add()([inputs, shortcut]) - else: - return relu_2 - - def dowm_sampling(inputs, pooling_type, use_shortcut, shortcut): - if pooling_type == 'kmaxpool': - k = math.ceil(K.int_shape(inputs)[1] / 2) - pool = KMaxPooling(k)(inputs) - elif pooling_type == 'maxpool': - pool = MaxPooling1D(pool_size=3, strides=2, padding='same')(inputs) - elif pooling_type == 'conv': - pool = Conv1D(filters=K.int_shape(inputs)[-1], kernel_size=3, strides=2, - kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(inputs) - else: - raise ValueError('pooling_type `{}` not understood'.format(pooling_type)) - if shortcut is not None and use_shortcut: - shortcut = Conv1D(filters=K.int_shape(inputs)[-1], kernel_size=3, strides=2, - kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(shortcut) - return Add()([pool, shortcut]) - else: - return pool - - if not isinstance(depth, list) or len(depth) != 4: - raise ValueError('depth must be a list of 4 integer, got `{}`'.format(depth)) - if pooling_type not in ['conv', 'maxpool', 'kmaxpool']: - raise ValueError('pooling_type `{}` not understood'.format(pooling_type)) - - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - - # Lookup table - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - # first temporal conv layer - conv_out = Conv1D(filters=64, kernel_size=3, kernel_initializer='he_uniform', padding='same')(text_embed) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 64 - for i in range(depth[0]): - if i < depth[0] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=64, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=64, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - # shortcut is the second last conv block output - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 128 - for i in range(depth[1]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - shortcut = conv_out - - # temporal conv block: 256 - for i in range(depth[2]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=256, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=256, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # down-sampling - conv_out = dowm_sampling(inputs=conv_out, pooling_type=pooling_type, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, - shortcut=shortcut) - - # temporal conv block: 512 - for i in range(depth[3]): - if i < depth[1] - 1: - shortcut = conv_out - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=shortcut) - else: - # shortcut is not used at the last conv block - conv_out = conv_block(inputs=conv_out, filters=128, use_shortcut=use_shortcut, shortcut=None) - - # 8-max pooling - conv_out = KMaxPooling(k=8)(conv_out) - flatten = Flatten()(conv_out) - - fc1 = Dense(2048, activation='relu')(flatten) - fc2 = Dense(2048, activation='relu')(fc1) - - return Model(input_text, fc2) - - # implementation of dynamic convolution network - def dcnn(self): - input_text = Input(shape=(self.max_len, )) - embedding_layer = Embedding(self.weights.shape[0], self.config.embedding_dim, weights=[self.weights])(input_text) - text_embed = SpatialDropout1D(0.2)(embedding_layer) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_1 = ZeroPadding1D((6, 6))(text_embed) - conv_1 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=7, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_1) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_1 = KMaxPooling(int(self.max_len / 3 * 2))(conv_1) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_1 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_1) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_2 = ZeroPadding1D((4, 4))(non_linear_1) - conv_2 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=5, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_2) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_2 = KMaxPooling(int(self.max_len / 3 * 1))(conv_2) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_2 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_2) - - # wide convolution - zero_padded_3 = ZeroPadding1D((2, 2))(non_linear_2) - conv_3 = Conv1D(filters=128, kernel_size=5, strides=1, padding='valid')(zero_padded_3) - # folding - folded = Folding()(conv_3) - # dynamic k-max pooling - k_maxpool_3 = KMaxPooling(k=10)(folded) - # non-linear feature function - non_linear_3 = ReLU()(k_maxpool_3) - - flatten = Flatten()(non_linear_3) - - return Model(input_text, flatten) - - # weighted merge models - @staticmethod - def weighted_merge(n_model, n_dim): - """ - compute a weighted output from multiple parallel models using softmax layer - Input: concatenate of `n_model` parallel models - """ - model_concat = Input(shape=(n_model*n_dim, )) - - weights = Dense(n_model, activation='softmax')(model_concat) - weights_expand = Lambda(lambda x: K.expand_dims(x, axis=-1))(weights) # [batch_size, n_model, 1] - - model_unfold = Reshape((n_model, n_dim))(model_concat) # [batch_size, n_model, n_dim] - weighted_output = multiply([model_unfold, weights_expand]) # [batch_size, n_model, n_dim] - weighted_output = Lambda(lambda x: K.sum(x, axis=1))(weighted_output) # [batch_size, n_dim] - - return Model(model_concat, weighted_output) - diff --git a/model/utils.py b/model/utils.py deleted file mode 100644 index a5b5329..0000000 --- a/model/utils.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,216 +0,0 @@ -# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- - -import pickle -import numpy as np -from sklearn.metrics import f1_score, accuracy_score -from config import Config - -config = Config() - - -def pickle_load(file_path): - return pickle.load(open(file_path, 'rb')) - - -def pickle_dump(obj, file_path): - pickle.dump(obj, open(file_path, 'wb')) - - -def get_score_joint(y_true, y_pred): - """ - return score for predictions made by joint model - :param y_true: list of arrays shaped [batch_size, 4], 20 arrays in all - :param y_pred: list of arrays shaped [batch_size, 4], 20 arrays in all - :return: - """ - tp = 0 - fp = 0 - fn = 0 - - for i in range(len(y_true)): # len(y_true) is the number of aspects - if len(y_true[i].shape) == 2: - true = np.argmax(y_true[i], axis=-1) - else: - true = y_true[i] - if len(y_pred[i].shape) == 2: - pred = np.argmax(y_pred[i], axis=-1) - else: - pred = y_pred[i] - batch_size = true.shape[0] - for j in range(batch_size): - if true[j] != 0 and pred[j] != 0 and true[j] == pred[j]: - tp += 1 - elif true[j] != 0 and pred[j] != 0 and true[j] != pred[j]: - fp += 1 - elif true[j] != 0 and pred[j] == 0: - fn += 1 - elif true[j] == 0 and pred[j] != 0: - fp += 1 - - if tp + fp == 0: - precision = 1.0 - else: - precision = float(tp) / (tp + fp) - if tp + fn == 0: - recall = 1.0 - else: - recall = float(tp) / (tp + fn) - if precision == 0 and recall == 0: - f1 = 0 - else: - f1 = 2*precision*recall / (precision + recall) - - print('precision: ', precision) - print('recall: ', recall) - print('f1_score: ', f1) - return precision, recall, f1 - - -def get_score_aspect(y_true, y_pred, threshold=0.5): - """ - return score for predictions made by aspect classification model - :param y_true: array shaped [batch_size, 20] - :param y_pred: array shaped [batch_size, 20] - :param threshold: - :return: - """ - y_pred = np.array([[1 if y_pred[i, j] >= threshold else 0 for j in range(y_pred.shape[1])] - for i in range(y_pred.shape[0])]) - tp = 0 - fp = 0 - fn = 0 - - for i in range(y_true.shape[0]): - true = y_true[i] - pred = y_pred[i] - for j in range(y_pred.shape[1]): - if true[j] == 1 and pred[j] == 1: - tp += 1 - elif true[j] == 1 and pred[j] == 0: - fn += 1 - elif true[j] == 0 and pred[j] == 1: - fp += 1 - - if tp + fp == 0: - precision = 1.0 - else: - precision = float(tp) / (tp + fp) - if tp + fn == 0: - recall = 1.0 - else: - recall = float(tp) / (tp + fn) - if precision == 0 and recall == 0: - f1 = 0 - else: - f1 = 2*precision*recall / (precision + recall) - print('precision: ', precision) - print('recall: ', recall) - print('f1_score: ', f1) - return precision, recall, f1 - - -def get_score_senti(y_true, y_pred): - """ - return score for predictions made by sentimant analysis model - :param y_true: array shaped [batch_size, 3] - :param y_pred: array shaped [batch_size, 3] - :return: - """ - - y_true = np.argmax(y_true, axis=-1) - y_pred = np.argmax(y_pred, axis=-1) - - acc = accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred) - - print('acc:', acc) - return acc - - -def get_score_ensemble(y_true, y_pred): - tp = 0 - fp = 0 - fn = 0 - - if len(y_true.shape) == 2: - true = np.argmax(y_true, axis=-1) - else: - true = y_true - if len(y_pred.shape) == 2: - pred = np.argmax(y_pred, axis=-1) - else: - pred = y_pred - batch_size = true.shape[0] - for j in range(batch_size): - if true[j] != 0 and pred[j] != 0 and true[j] == pred[j]: - tp += 1 - elif true[j] != 0 and pred[j] != 0 and true[j] != pred[j]: - fp += 1 - elif true[j] != 0 and pred[j] == 0: - fn += 1 - elif true[j] == 0 and pred[j] != 0: - fp += 1 - - if tp + fp == 0: - precision = 1.0 - else: - precision = float(tp) / (tp + fp) - if tp + fn == 0: - recall = 1.0 - else: - recall = float(tp) / (tp + fn) - if precision == 0 and recall == 0: - f1 = 0 - else: - f1 = 2 * precision * recall / (precision + recall) - - print('precision: ', precision) - print('recall: ', recall) - print('f1_score: ', f1) - return precision, recall, f1 - - -def pad_sequences_2d(sequences, max_sents, max_words, dtype='int32', padding='pre', truncating='pre', value=0.): - num_samples = len(sequences) - - x = (np.ones((num_samples, max_sents, max_words)) * value).astype(dtype) - - for i, doc in enumerate(sequences): - if not len(doc): - continue # empty list was found - - if truncating == 'pre': - doc = doc[-max_sents:] - elif truncating == 'post': - doc = doc[:max_sents] - else: - raise ValueError('Truncating type "%s" not understood' % truncating) - - sents = (np.ones((max_sents, max_words)) * value).astype(dtype) - for j, sent in enumerate(doc): - if not len(sent): - continue - - if truncating == 'pre': - trunc = sent[-max_words:] - elif truncating == 'post': - trunc = sent[:max_words] - else: - raise ValueError('Truncating type "%s" not understood' % truncating) - - trunc = np.asarray(trunc, dtype=dtype) - - if padding == 'post': - sents[j, :len(trunc)] = trunc - elif padding == 'pre': - sents[j, -len(trunc):] = trunc - else: - raise ValueError('Padding type "%s" not understood' % padding) - - if padding == 'post': - x[i, :sents.shape[0], :] = sents - elif padding == 'pre': - x[i, -sents.shape[0]:, :] = sents - else: - raise ValueError('Padding type "%s" not understood' % padding) - - return x diff --git a/model_use.py b/model_use.py index 7532ab4..79bb0d8 100644 --- a/model_use.py +++ b/model_use.py @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ from util.data_load import load_data3 import numpy as np from util.util import cal_err_ratio -from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data2 +from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data # use this model test model1&model2 or generate the result @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ def model_use(i): # test_pos_file = './data/part_data/test_pos_1.txt' # test_neg_file = './data/part_data/test_neg_1.txt' test_file = './data/part_data_all/test_1.txt' - generate_imdb_model2_data2(model_file=model_file, result_path=result_path, - test_file=test_file, count=10) + generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file=model_file, result_path=result_path, + test_file=test_file, count=10) print('Load result ...') x_test, y_test = load_data3(data_path=result_path) model2 = mlp2(sample_dim=x_test.shape[1], class_count=2) diff --git a/result/test_classify_result_154493.txt b/result/test_classify_result_154493.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8408e4b --- /dev/null +++ b/result/test_classify_result_154493.txt @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +pred_result:[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.5 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.54 +pred_result:[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.49 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.52 +pred_result:[1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 + 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.47 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 + 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.45 +pred_result:[1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 + 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.48 +pred_result:[1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 + 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.54 +pred_result:[1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.53 diff --git a/result/train_classify_result_154493.txt b/result/train_classify_result_154493.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b011bb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/result/train_classify_result_154493.txt @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +pred_result:[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.5 +pred_result:[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.5 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.48 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.47 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 + 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.49 +pred_result:[0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 + 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.42 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.36 +pred_result:[0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.31 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 + 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0] +true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.29 diff --git a/sentiment_analysis.py b/sentiment_analysis.py deleted file mode 100644 index 80a3419..0000000 --- a/sentiment_analysis.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,163 +0,0 @@ -# -*- encoding:utf-8 -*- - -import pickle -import os.path -import numpy as np -from keras.callbacks import EarlyStopping, ModelCheckpoint, ReduceLROnPlateau, CSVLogger -from util import data_process -from model.model1 import BiLSTM_Attention -import sys - - -def select_model(modelname, sourcevocabsize, targetvocabsize, word_W, - input_seq_lenth, output_seq_lenth, emd_dim, - sourcecharsize, char_W, input_word_length, char_emd_dim, batch_size=128): - nn_model = None - - if modelname is 'BiLSTM_Attention': - nn_model = BiLSTM_Attention(sourcevocabsize=sourcevocabsize, targetvocabsize=targetvocabsize, - word_W=word_W, - input_seq_lenth=input_seq_lenth, - output_seq_lenth=output_seq_lenth, - emd_dim=emd_dim, - sourcecharsize=sourcecharsize, - char_W=char_W, - input_word_length=input_word_length, - char_emd_dim=char_emd_dim, - batch_size=batch_size) - return nn_model - - -def train_e2e_model(Modelname, datafile, modelfile, resultdir, npochos=100, batch_size=50, retrain=False): - # load training data and test data - train, train_char, train_label,\ - test, test_char, test_label,\ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k,\ - target_vob, vob_idex_target,\ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k,\ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - - # train model - nn_model = select_model(Modelname, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k, batch_size=batch_size) - - if retrain: - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile) - - nn_model.summary() - - indices = np.arange(len(train)) - np.random.shuffle(indices) - train_shuf = np.zeros((len(train), max_s)).astype('int32') - train_char_shuf = np.zeros((len(train_char), max_s, max_c)).astype('int32') - train_label_shuf = np.zeros((len(train_label), len(target_vob))).astype('int32') - for idx, s in enumerate(indices): - train_shuf[idx,] = train[s] - train_char_shuf[idx,] = train_char[s] - train_label_shuf[idx,] = train_label[s] - - monitor = 'val_acc' # val_acc val_loss - early_stopping = EarlyStopping(monitor=monitor, patience=2) - csv_logger = CSVLogger("./logs/" + modelfile + ".logs") - checkpointer = ModelCheckpoint(filepath="./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile + ".best_model.h5", monitor=monitor, verbose=0, - save_best_only=False, save_weights_only=True) - reduce_lr = ReduceLROnPlateau(monitor=monitor, factor=0.1, patience=10, min_lr=0.0001) - nn_model.fit(x=[np.array(train_shuf), np.array(train_char_shuf)], - y=np.array(train_label_shuf), - batch_size=batch_size, - epochs=npochos, - verbose=1, - shuffle=True, - validation_split=0.2, - # validation_data=([np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], [np.array(test_label)]), - callbacks=[reduce_lr, checkpointer, csv_logger, early_stopping]) - - nn_model.save_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + modelfile, overwrite=True) - - return nn_model - - -def evaluate_model(model_name, model_file, batch_size=50): - train, train_char, train_label, \ - test, test_char, test_label, \ - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile, 'rb')) - nn_model = select_model(model_name, sourcevocabsize=len(word_vob), targetvocabsize=len(target_vob), - word_W=word_W, input_seq_lenth=max_s, output_seq_lenth=max_s, emd_dim=word_k, - sourcecharsize=len(char_vob), char_W=char_W, input_word_length=max_c, - char_emd_dim=char_k) - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file) - loss, acc = nn_model.evaluate([np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], np.array(test_label), verbose=0, - batch_size=batch_size) - print('\n test_test score:', loss, acc) - nn_model.load_weights("./modfile/model1file/" + model_file + ".best_model.h5") - loss, acc = nn_model.evaluate([np.array(test), np.array(test_char)], np.array(test_label), verbose=0, - batch_size=batch_size) - print('bestModel...\n test_test score:', loss, acc) - - -if __name__ == "__main__": - - maxlen = 100 - batch_size = 128 - npochos = 100 - modelname = 'BiLSTM_Attention' - trainfile = "./data/mix_data_train_data.json" - testfile = "./data/mix_data_test_data.json" - w2v_file = "./modfile/Word2Vec.mod" - char2v_file = "./modfile/Char2Vec.mod" - datafile = "./modfile/model1_data/data.pkl" - modelfile = modelname + ".pkl" - resultdir = "./modfile/result/" - print(modelname) - - retrain = True if sys.argv[1] == 'train' else False - Test = True - - all_data = True - if all_data: - if not os.path.exists(datafile): - print("Precess data....") - data_process.get_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, - maxlen=maxlen) - - if not os.path.exists("./modfile/" + modelfile): - print("data has extisted: " + datafile) - print("Training EE model....") - train_e2e_model(modelname, datafile, modelfile, resultdir, - npochos=npochos, batch_size=batch_size, retrain=False) - else: - if retrain: - print("ReTraining EE model....") - train_e2e_model(modelname, datafile, modelfile, resultdir, - npochos=npochos, batch_size=batch_size, retrain=retrain) - if Test: - print("test EE model....") - evaluate_model(modelname, modelfile, batch_size=batch_size) - else: - for i in range(0, 5): - datafile = "./modfile/model1_data/data" + "_fold_" + str(i) + ".pkl" - modelfile = modelname + "_fold_" + str(i) + ".pkl" - - if not os.path.exists(datafile): - print("Precess data " + str(i) + "....") - data_process.get_part_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, - maxlen=maxlen, left=i) - - if not os.path.exists("./modfile/" + modelfile): - print("data has extisted: " + datafile) - print("Training EE " + str(i) + " model....") - train_e2e_model(modelname, datafile, modelfile, resultdir, - npochos=npochos, batch_size=batch_size, retrain=False) - else: - if retrain: - print("ReTraining EE " + str(i) + " model....") - train_e2e_model(modelname, datafile, modelfile, resultdir, - npochos=npochos, batch_size=batch_size, retrain=retrain) - if Test: - print("test EE " + str(i) + " model....") - evaluate_model(modelname, modelfile, batch_size=batch_size) diff --git a/util/data_load.py b/util/data_load.py index 9d30a3b..4357772 100644 --- a/util/data_load.py +++ b/util/data_load.py @@ -4,30 +4,11 @@ from keras.utils import np_utils from keras import backend as K import codecs -from make_predict import generate_result from util import data_process -from model.model1 import lstm_attention_model, lstm_mul_model +from model.model1 import lstm_mul_model from sklearn.utils import shuffle -import pickle import os -import json K.set_image_dim_ordering('th') -seed = 7 -np.random.seed(seed) - - -# load the data which model1 train -def load_data1(trainfile, testfile): - X_train, y_train, num_classes = pickle.load(open(trainfile, 'rb')) - - print('X train shape:', X_train.shape) - print('y train shape:', y_train.shape) - - X_test, y_test, num_classes = pickle.load(open(testfile, 'rb')) - print('X test shape:', X_test.shape) - print('y test shape:', y_test.shape) - - return X_train, y_train, X_test, y_test, num_classes # load the data which model2 train @@ -131,87 +112,6 @@ def load_all_data(train_file): return x_train, y_train, x_dev, y_dev, x_test, y_test -# generate the model labels from model1 result -def generate_model2_label(file_name, mlp_model, x_test): - group_count = 60 - if not os.path.exists(file_name): - print(file_name) - print("file not found!") - # if file not exists, return [0]*30 - return np.array([0] * group_count) - mlp_model.load_weights(file_name) - results = mlp_model.predict(x_test) - label = np.argmax(results, axis=1) - # print(label) - return label - # make_model2_dataset(result_path='./err_data/iris_1_error_data.csv', label=label, x_test=x_test, y_test=y_test) - - -# generate model2 data -def generate_model2_data_old(model_name, datafile, model_file, testfile, result_path, batch_size): - y1_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + "1.pkl", model_file=model_file + "1.pkl", - testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size) - y2_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + "2.pkl", model_file=model_file + "2.pkl", - testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size) - y3_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + "3.pkl", model_file=model_file + "3.pkl", - testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size) - y4_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + "4.pkl", model_file=model_file + "4.pkl", - testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size) - y5_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + "5.pkl", model_file=model_file + "5.pkl", - testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size) - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - y_test = [] - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - label = item['label'] - y_test.append(label) - print(len(y_test)) - print(len(y1_test)) - z_data = np.c_[y1_test, y2_test, y3_test, y4_test, y5_test, np.array(y_test)] - z_dataset = pd.DataFrame(z_data) - z_dataset.columns = ['test1', 'test2', 'test3', 'test4', 'test5', 'test'] - z_dataset.to_csv(result_path, encoding='utf-8', header=1, index=0) - return z_dataset - - -# generate model2 data -def generate_model2_data(model_name, datafile, model_file, testfile, result_path, batch_size, count): - labels = [] - for i in range(1, count+1): - yi_test = generate_result(model_name=model_name, datafile=datafile + str(i) + ".pkl", model_file=model_file - + str(i) + ".pkl", testfile=testfile, batch_size=batch_size, count=count) - print("yi_test len: " + str(len(yi_test))) - if i == 1: - print("----------") - z_data = yi_test - else: - z_data = np.c_[z_data, yi_test] - labels.append("test" + str(i+1)) - ft = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = ft.readlines() - y_test = [] - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - item = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n')) - label = item['label'] - y_test.append(label) - print(len(y_test)) - # train, train_char, train_label, \ - # test, test_char, test_label, \ - # word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, \ - # target_vob, vob_idex_target, \ - # char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, \ - # max_s, max_c = pickle.load(open(datafile + str(i) + ".pkl", 'rb')) - # test_length = len(test_label) - # print(test_length) - labels.append("test") - z_data = np.c_[z_data, y_test] - z_dataset = pd.DataFrame(z_data) - z_dataset.columns = labels - z_dataset.to_csv(result_path, encoding='utf-8', header=1, index=0) - return z_dataset - - # save the error dataset depends on the model result and the truth label def make_err_dataset(result_path, label, x_test, y_test): count = 0 @@ -225,41 +125,13 @@ def make_err_dataset(result_path, label, x_test, y_test): err_data.to_csv(result_path, encoding='utf-8', header=1, index=0) -def generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file, test_pos_file, test_neg_file, result_path, count): - labels = [] - # model = lstm_model() - # model = lstm_attention_model(input_dim=800, output_dim=1) - model = lstm_mul_model() - x_test, y_test = data_process.get_imdb_test_data(pos_file=test_pos_file, - neg_file=test_neg_file) - for i in range(1, count+1): - yi_test = generate_imdb_model2(model_name=model_file + str(i) + ".h5", lstm_model=model, x_test=x_test, - line_count=1000) - print("yi_test len: " + str(len(yi_test))) - if i == 1: - print("----------") - z_data = yi_test - else: - z_data = np.c_[z_data, yi_test] - labels.append("test" + str(i+1)) - print(len(y_test)) - labels.append("test") - z_data = np.c_[z_data, y_test] - z_dataset = pd.DataFrame(z_data) - z_dataset.columns = labels - z_dataset.to_csv(result_path, encoding='utf-8', header=1, index=0) - return z_dataset - - -def generate_imdb_model2_data2(model_file, test_file, result_path, count): +def generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file, test_file, result_path, count): labels = [] - # model = lstm_model() - # model = lstm_attention_model(input_dim=800, output_dim=1) model = lstm_mul_model() - x_test, y_test = data_process.get_imdb_test_data2(raw_file=test_file) + x_test, y_test = data_process.get_imdb_test_data(raw_file=test_file) for i in range(1, count+1): yi_test = generate_imdb_model2(model_name=model_file + str(i) + ".h5", lstm_model=model, x_test=x_test, - line_count=1000) + line_count=100) print("yi_test len: " + str(len(yi_test))) if i == 1: print("----------") diff --git a/util/data_process.py b/util/data_process.py index 26fecf2..6d1b607 100644 --- a/util/data_process.py +++ b/util/data_process.py @@ -12,567 +12,7 @@ from keras.preprocessing import sequence -def load_vec_txt(fname, vocab, k=100): - f = codecs.open(fname, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - w2v={} - W = np.zeros(shape=(vocab.__len__() + 1, k)) - unknowtoken = 0 - for line in f: - if len(line) < k: - continue - values = line.split() - word = values[0] - coefs = np.asarray(values[1:], dtype='float32') - w2v[word] = coefs - f.close() - w2v["**UNK**"] = np.random.uniform(-1*math.sqrt(3/k), math.sqrt(3/k), k) - for word in vocab: - if not w2v.__contains__(word): - print('UNK---------------- ', word) - w2v[word] = w2v["**UNK**"] - unknowtoken += 1 - W[vocab[word]] = w2v[word] - else: - W[vocab[word]] = w2v[word] - print('UnKnown tokens in w2v', unknowtoken) - return k, W - - -def load_vec_character(vocab_c_inx, k=30): - W = np.zeros(shape=(vocab_c_inx.__len__()+1, k)) - for i in vocab_c_inx: - W[vocab_c_inx[i]] = np.random.uniform(-1*math.sqrt(3/k), math.sqrt(3/k), k) - return W, k - - -def load_vec_onehot(vocab_w_inx): - """ - Loads 100x1 word vecs from word2vec - """ - k = vocab_w_inx.__len__() - W = np.zeros(shape=(vocab_w_inx.__len__()+1, k+1)) - for word in vocab_w_inx: - W[vocab_w_inx[word], vocab_w_inx[word]] = 1. - return k, W - - -def make_idx_posi_index(file, max_s): - data_s_all = [] - f = open(file, 'r') - fr = f.readlines() - for line in fr: - sent = json.loads(line.strip('\r\n')) - p_sent = sent['positions'] - data_p = [] - if len(p_sent) > max_s: - for i in range(0, max_s): - list = p_sent[i] - data_p.append(list) - else: - for i in range(len(p_sent)): - list = p_sent[i] - data_p.append(list) - while len(data_p) < max_s: - list = np.zeros(4) - data_p.append(list.tolist()) - data_s_all.append(data_p) - f.close() - return data_s_all - - -def make_idx_word_index(file, max_s, max_c, source_vob, target_vob, target_1_vob, source_char): - - data_s_all = [] - data_t_all = [] - data_c_all = [] - f = codecs.open(file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - fr = f.readlines() - for num, line in enumerate(fr): - print(num) - if len(line) <=1: - continue - sent = json.loads(line.strip('\r\n')) - s_sent = sent['words'] - t_sent = sent['label'] - data_s = [] - if len(s_sent) > max_s: - i = 0 - while i < max_s: - if not source_vob.__contains__(s_sent[i]): - data_s.append(source_vob["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_s.append(source_vob[s_sent[i]]) - i += 1 - else: - i = 0 - while i < len(s_sent): - if not source_vob.__contains__(s_sent[i]): - data_s.append(source_vob["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_s.append(source_vob[s_sent[i]]) - i += 1 - num = max_s - len(s_sent) - for inum in range(0, num): - data_s.append(0) - - data_s_all.append(data_s) - targetvec = np.zeros(len(target_vob)) - targetvec[target_vob[t_sent]] = 1 - data_t_all.append(targetvec) - data_w = [] - for ii in range(0, min(max_s, len(s_sent))): - word = s_sent[ii] - data_c = [] - for chr in range(0, min(word.__len__(), max_c)): - if not source_char.__contains__(word[chr]): - data_c.append(source_char["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_c.append(source_char[word[chr]]) - - num = max_c - word.__len__() - for i in range(0, max(num, 0)): - data_c.append(0) - - data_w.append(data_c) - - num = max_s - len(s_sent) - for inum in range(0, num): - data_tmp = [] - for i in range(0, max_c): - data_tmp.append(0) - data_w.append(data_tmp) - data_c_all.append(data_w) - - f.close() - return data_s_all, data_t_all, data_c_all - - -def get_char_index(files): - - source_vob = {} - sourc_idex_word = {} - count = 1 - max_s = 0 - dict = {} - for file in files: - f = codecs.open(file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - fr = f.readlines() - for line in fr: - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = sent['words'] - for word in sourc: - for i in range(len(word)): - if not source_vob.__contains__(word[i]): - source_vob[word[i]] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = word[i] - count += 1 - if word.__len__() in dict.keys(): - dict[word.__len__()] = dict[word.__len__()]+1 - else: - dict[word.__len__()] = 1 - if word.__len__() > max_s: - max_s = word.__len__() - f.close() - - if not source_vob.__contains__("**END**"): - source_vob["**END**"] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = "**END**" - count += 1 - if not source_vob.__contains__("**UNK**"): - source_vob["**UNK**"] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = "**UNK**" - count += 1 - - return source_vob, sourc_idex_word, max_s - - -def get_feature_index(file): - label_vob = {} - label_idex_word = {} - count = 1 - # count = 0 - for labelingfile in file: - f = open(labelingfile, 'r') - fr = f.readlines() - for line in fr: - if line.__len__() <= 1: - continue - sourc = line.strip('\r\n').rstrip('\n').split(' ')[1] - if not label_vob.__contains__(sourc): - label_vob[sourc] = count - label_idex_word[count] = sourc - count += 1 - f.close() - if not label_vob.__contains__("**UNK**"): - label_vob["**UNK**"] = count - label_idex_word[count] = "**UNK**" - count += 1 - return label_vob, label_idex_word - - -def get_word_index(files, testfile): - source_vob = {} - target_vob = {} - sourc_idex_word = {} - target_idex_word = {} - max_s = 0 - tarcount = 0 - count = 1 - dict = {} - for file in files: - f = codecs.open(file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - fr = f.readlines() - for line in fr: - if line.__len__() <= 1: - continue - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = sent['words'] - for word in sourc: - if not source_vob.__contains__(word): - source_vob[word] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = word - count += 1 - - if sourc.__len__() in dict.keys(): - dict[sourc.__len__()] = dict[sourc.__len__()] + 1 - else: - dict[sourc.__len__()] = 1 - if sourc.__len__() > max_s: - max_s = sourc.__len__() - # print('max_s ', max_s, sourc) - target = sent['label'] - if not target_vob.__contains__(target): - target_vob[target] = tarcount - target_idex_word[tarcount] = target - tarcount += 1 - f.close() - if not source_vob.__contains__("**PAD**"): - source_vob["**PAD**"] = 0 - sourc_idex_word[0] = "**PAD**" - - if not source_vob.__contains__("**UNK**"): - source_vob["**UNK**"] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = "**UNK**" - count += 1 - - f = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - fr = f.readlines() - for line in fr: - if line.__len__() <= 1: - continue - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = sent['words'] - for word in sourc: - if not source_vob.__contains__(word): - source_vob[word] = count - sourc_idex_word[count] = word - count += 1 - if sourc.__len__() > max_s: - max_s = sourc.__len__() - - f.close() - return source_vob, sourc_idex_word, target_vob, target_idex_word, max_s - - -def make_idx_char_index(trainfile, max_s, max_c, source_char): - data_c_all = [] - - f1 = codecs.open(trainfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = f1.readlines() - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - print(num) - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = sent['words'] - data_w = [] - for word in sourc: - data_c = [] - for chr in range(0, min(word.__len__(), max_c)): - if not source_char.__contains__(word[chr]): - data_c.append(source_char["**UNK**"]) - else: - data_c.append(source_char[word[chr]]) - - num = max_c - word.__len__() - for i in range(0, max(num, 0)): - data_c.append(0) - data_w.append(data_c) - num = max_s - len(sourc) - for inum in range(0, num): - data_tmp = [] - for i in range(0, max_c): - data_tmp.append(0) - data_w.append(data_tmp) - data_c_all.append(data_w) - f1.close() - return data_c_all - - -def get_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen = 50): - char_vob, vob_idex_char, max_c = get_char_index({trainfile, testfile}) - print("char_vob size: ", char_vob.__len__()) - print("max_c: ", max_c) - max_c = 6 - word_vob, vob_idex_word, target_vob, vob_idex_target, max_s = get_word_index({trainfile}, testfile) - print("word_vob vocab size: ", str(len(word_vob))) - print("max_s: ", max_s) - print("target vocab size: " + str(target_vob)) - max_s = 800 - - word_k, word_W = load_vec_txt(w2v_file, word_vob, k=w2v_k) - print("source_W size: " + str(len(word_W))) - char_k, char_W = load_vec_txt(char2v_file, char_vob, c2v_k) - print('char_W shape:', char_W.shape) - - train_all, target_all, train_all_char = make_idx_word_index(trainfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('train_all size', len(train_all), 'target_all', len(target_all)) - print('train_all_char size', len(train_all_char)) - - extra_test_num = int(len(train_all) / 10) - left = 0 - right = 1 - test = train_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - test_label = target_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train = train_all[:extra_test_num * left] + train_all[extra_test_num * right:] - train_label = target_all[:extra_test_num * left] + target_all[extra_test_num * right:] - print('extra_test_num', extra_test_num) - print('train len ', train.__len__(), len(train_label)) - print('test len ', test.__len__(), len(test_label)) - - test_char = train_all_char[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train_char = train_all_char[:extra_test_num * left] + train_all_char[extra_test_num * right:] - print('test_char len ', test_char.__len__(), ) - print('train_char len ', train_char.__len__()) - - print("dataset created!") - out = codecs.open(datafile, 'wb') - pickle.dump([train, train_char, train_label, - test, test_char, test_label, - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, - target_vob, vob_idex_target, - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, - max_s, max_c - ], out, 0) - out.close() - - -def get_part_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen = 50, left=0): - char_vob, vob_idex_char, max_c = get_char_index({trainfile, testfile}) - print("char_vob size: ", char_vob.__len__()) - print("max_c: ", max_c) - max_c = 6 - word_vob, vob_idex_word, target_vob, vob_idex_target, max_s = get_word_index({trainfile}, testfile) - print("word_vob vocab size: ", str(len(word_vob))) - print("max_s: ", max_s) - print("target vocab size: " + str(target_vob)) - max_s = 800 - - word_k, word_W = load_vec_txt(w2v_file, word_vob, k=w2v_k) - print("source_W size: " + str(len(word_W))) - char_k, char_W = load_vec_txt(char2v_file, char_vob, c2v_k) - print('char_W shape:', char_W.shape) - - train_all, target_all, train_all_char = make_idx_word_index(trainfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('train_all size', len(train_all), 'target_all', len(target_all)) - print('train_all_char size', len(train_all_char)) - - extra_test_num = int(len(train_all) / 10) - right = left + 1 - test = train_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - test_label = target_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train = train_all[:extra_test_num * left] + train_all[extra_test_num * right:] - train_label = target_all[:extra_test_num * left] + target_all[extra_test_num * right:] - print('extra_test_num', extra_test_num) - print('train len ', train.__len__(), len(train_label)) - print('test len ', test.__len__(), len(test_label)) - - test_char = train_all_char[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train_char = train_all_char[:extra_test_num * left] + train_all_char[extra_test_num * right:] - print('test_char len ', test_char.__len__(), ) - print('train_char len ', train_char.__len__()) - - print("dataset created!") - out = codecs.open(datafile, 'wb') - pickle.dump([train, train_char, train_label, - test, test_char, test_label, - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, - target_vob, vob_idex_target, - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, - max_s, max_c - ], out, 0) - out.close() - - -def get_part_train_test_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen = 50, left=0): - char_vob, vob_idex_char, max_c = get_char_index({trainfile, testfile}) - print("char_vob size: ", char_vob.__len__()) - print("max_c: ", max_c) - max_c = 6 - word_vob, vob_idex_word, target_vob, vob_idex_target, max_s = get_word_index({trainfile}, testfile) - print("word_vob vocab size: ", str(len(word_vob))) - print("max_s: ", max_s) - print("target vocab size: " + str(target_vob)) - max_s = 800 - - word_k, word_W = load_vec_txt(w2v_file, word_vob, k=w2v_k) - print("source_W size: " + str(len(word_W))) - char_k, char_W = load_vec_txt(char2v_file, char_vob, c2v_k) - print('char_W shape:', char_W.shape) - - train_all, target_all, train_all_char = make_idx_word_index(trainfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('train_all size', len(train_all), 'target_all', len(target_all)) - print('train_all_char size', len(train_all_char)) - - test_all, test_target_all, test_all_char = make_idx_word_index(testfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('test_all size', len(test_all), 'test_target_all', len(test_target_all)) - print('test_all_char size', len(test_all_char)) - - extra_train_num = int(len(train_all) / 10) - extra_test_num = int(len(test_all) / 10) - - right = left + 1 - test = test_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - test_label = test_target_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train = train_all[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - train_label = target_all[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - - print('extra_train_num', extra_train_num) - print('train len ', train.__len__(), len(train_label)) - print('extra_test_num', extra_test_num) - print('test len ', test.__len__(), len(test_label)) - - test_char = test_all_char[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train_char = train_all_char[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - print('test_char len ', test_char.__len__(), ) - print('train_char len ', train_char.__len__()) - - print("dataset created!") - out = codecs.open(datafile, 'wb') - pickle.dump([train, train_char, train_label, - test, test_char, test_label, - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, - target_vob, vob_idex_target, - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, - max_s, max_c - ], out, 0) - out.close() - - -def data_divide(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen = 50, part=10): - char_vob, vob_idex_char, max_c = get_char_index({trainfile, testfile}) - print("char_vob size: ", char_vob.__len__()) - print("max_c: ", max_c) - max_c = 6 - word_vob, vob_idex_word, target_vob, vob_idex_target, max_s = get_word_index({trainfile}, testfile) - print("word_vob vocab size: ", str(len(word_vob))) - print("max_s: ", max_s) - print("target vocab size: " + str(target_vob)) - max_s = 800 - - word_k, word_W = load_vec_txt(w2v_file, word_vob, k=w2v_k) - print("source_W size: " + str(len(word_W))) - char_k, char_W = load_vec_txt(char2v_file, char_vob, c2v_k) - print('char_W shape:', char_W.shape) - - train_all, target_all, train_all_char = make_idx_word_index(trainfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('train_all size', len(train_all), 'target_all', len(target_all)) - print('train_all_char size', len(train_all_char)) - - test_all, test_target_all, test_all_char = make_idx_word_index(testfile, max_s, max_c, word_vob, target_vob, None, - char_vob) - print('test_all size', len(train_all), 'test_target_all', len(target_all)) - print('test_all_char size', len(train_all_char)) - - extra_train_num = int(len(train_all) / 10) - extra_test_num = int(len(test_all) / 10) - for left in range(0, part): - right = left + 1 - data_file = datafile + str(right) + ".pkl" - - test = test_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - test_label = test_all[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train = train_all[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - train_label = target_all[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - - print('extra_train_num', extra_train_num) - print('train len ', train.__len__(), len(train_label)) - print('extra_test_num', extra_test_num) - print('test len ', test.__len__(), len(test_label)) - - test_char = test_all_char[extra_test_num * left:extra_test_num * right] - train_char = train_all_char[extra_train_num * left:extra_train_num * right] - print('test_char len ', test_char.__len__(), ) - print('train_char len ', train_char.__len__()) - - print("dataset created!") - out = codecs.open(data_file, 'wb') - pickle.dump([train, train_char, train_label, - test, test_char, test_label, - word_vob, vob_idex_word, word_W, word_k, - target_vob, vob_idex_target, - char_vob, vob_idex_char, char_W, char_k, - max_s, max_c - ], out, 0) - out.close() - - -def get_imdb_part_data(pos_file, neg_file): - pos_list = [] - with open(pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - line = f.readlines() - pos_list.extend(line) - neg_list = [] - with open(neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - line = f.readlines() - neg_list.extend(line) - # 创建标签 - label = [1 for i in range(250)] - label.extend([0 for i in range(250)]) - # 评论内容整合 - content = pos_list.extend(neg_list) - content = pos_list - # 去掉停用词和标点符号 - seq = [] - seqtence = [] - # nltk.download("stopwords") - # nltk.download("punkt") - stop_words = set(stopwords.words('english')) - for con in content: - words = nltk.word_tokenize(con) - line = [] - for word in words: - if word.isalpha() and word not in stop_words: - line.append(word) - seq.append(line) - seqtence.extend(line) - - # 获取词索引 - tokenizer = Tokenizer() - tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) - one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') - word_index = tokenizer.word_index - # sourcevocabsize = len(word_index) - sequences = tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) - # 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 - final_sequences = sequence.pad_sequences(sequences, maxlen=800) - - # 转换为numpy类型 - label = np.array(label) - # 随机打乱数据 - indices = np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences) - 1) - X = final_sequences[indices] - y = label[indices] - # 划分测试集和训练集 - Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2) - print("dataset created!") - return Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest - - -def get_imdb_part_data2(raw_file): +def get_imdb_part_data(raw_file): fr = open(raw_file, 'r', encoding='utf8') content = [] label = [] @@ -584,8 +24,6 @@ def get_imdb_part_data2(raw_file): # 去掉停用词和标点符号 seq = [] seqtence = [] - # nltk.download("stopwords") - # nltk.download("punkt") stop_words = set(stopwords.words('english')) for con in content: words = nltk.word_tokenize(con) @@ -599,9 +37,9 @@ def get_imdb_part_data2(raw_file): # 获取词索引 tokenizer = Tokenizer() tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) - one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') - word_index = tokenizer.word_index - # sourcevocabsize = len(word_index) + # one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') + # word_index = tokenizer.word_index + # sourcevocabsize = len(word_index) sequences = tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) # 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 final_sequences = sequence.pad_sequences(sequences, maxlen=800) @@ -609,67 +47,18 @@ def get_imdb_part_data2(raw_file): # 转换为numpy类型 label = np.array(label) # 随机打乱数据 - indices = np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences) - 1) - X = final_sequences[indices] - y = label[indices] + # indices = np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences) - 1) + # X = final_sequences[indices] + # y = label[indices] + X = final_sequences + y = label # 划分测试集和训练集 Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2) print("dataset created!") return Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest -def get_imdb_test_data(pos_file, neg_file): - pos_list = [] - with open(pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - line = f.readlines() - pos_list.extend(line) - neg_list = [] - with open(neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - line = f.readlines() - neg_list.extend(line) - # 创建标签 - label = [1 for i in range(500)] - label.extend([0 for i in range(500)]) - # 评论内容整合 - content = pos_list.extend(neg_list) - content = pos_list - # 去掉停用词和标点符号 - seq = [] - seqtence = [] - # nltk.download("stopwords") - # nltk.download("punkt") - stop_words = set(stopwords.words('english')) - for con in content: - words = nltk.word_tokenize(con) - line = [] - for word in words: - if word.isalpha() and word not in stop_words: - line.append(word) - seq.append(line) - seqtence.extend(line) - - # 获取词索引 - tokenizer = Tokenizer() - tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) - one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') - word_index = tokenizer.word_index - word_index = tokenizer.word_index - sequences = tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) - # 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 - final_sequences = sequence.pad_sequences(sequences, maxlen=800) - - # 转换为numpy类型 - label = np.array(label) - # buneng随机打乱数据 - # indices = np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences)) - X = final_sequences - y = label - # 划分测试集和训练集 - print("testdata created!") - return X, y - - -def get_imdb_test_data2(raw_file): +def get_imdb_test_data(raw_file): fr = open(raw_file, 'r', encoding='utf8') content = [] label = [] @@ -696,9 +85,9 @@ def get_imdb_test_data2(raw_file): # 获取词索引 tokenizer = Tokenizer() tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) - one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') - word_index = tokenizer.word_index - word_index = tokenizer.word_index + # one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') + # word_index = tokenizer.word_index + # word_index = tokenizer.word_index sequences = tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) # 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 final_sequences = sequence.pad_sequences(sequences, maxlen=800) @@ -715,15 +104,4 @@ def get_imdb_test_data2(raw_file): if __name__ == "__main__": - maxlen = 50 - trainfile = "../data/mix_data_train_data.json" - testfile = "../data/mix_data_test_data.json" - w2v_file = "../modfile/Word2Vec.mod" - char2v_file = "../modfile/Char2Vec.mod" - w2v_k = 100 - c2v_k = 100 - datafile = "../modfile/model1_data/data_" - modelfile = "../modfile/model.pkl" - datafile = "../modfile/data.pkl" - get_data(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen=50) - # data_divide(trainfile, testfile, w2v_file, char2v_file, datafile, w2v_k=100, c2v_k=100, maxlen=50, part=5) \ No newline at end of file + get_imdb_part_data("../data/part_data_all/train_1.txt") \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/util/rawdata_process.py b/util/rawdata_process.py index 5b5db6f..e1e5a53 100644 --- a/util/rawdata_process.py +++ b/util/rawdata_process.py @@ -45,174 +45,6 @@ def generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, part, count): return -def generate_full_datafile(filetype='train'): - pos_location = '../raw_data/' + filetype + '/pos' - pos_files = os.listdir(pos_location) - neg_location = '../raw_data/' + filetype + '/neg' - neg_files = os.listdir(neg_location) - pos_all = codecs.open('../data/' + filetype + '_pos_all.txt', 'a', encoding='utf8') - neg_all = codecs.open('../data/' + filetype + '_neg_all.txt', 'a', encoding='utf8') - all = [] - for file in pos_files: - whole_location = os.path.join(pos_location, file) - with open(whole_location, 'r', encoding='utf8') as f: - line = f.readlines() - all.extend(line) - for file in all: - pos_all.write(file) - pos_all.write('\n') - alls = [] - for file in neg_files: - whole_location = os.path.join(neg_location, file) - with open(whole_location, 'r', encoding='utf8') as f: - line = f.readlines() - alls.extend(line) - for file in alls: - neg_all.write(file) - neg_all.write('\n') - return - - -def neg_data_process(input_file, output_file): - with codecs.open(input_file, 'r', 'utf-8') as f: - json_data = json.load(f) - length = len(json_data['data']) - print(length) - print(json_data['data'][2]['_source']['result']['content']) - result_json = {} - fw = codecs.open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - fw1 = codecs.open('../data/word2vec.train.data', 'a', encoding='utf-8') - for i in range(length): - print(i) - try: - content = json_data['data'][i]['_source']['result']['content'] - except IndexError: - content = None - if content is None: - continue - content = content.replace('‘', '').replace('’', '').replace('<', '').replace('>', '').replace('\\"', '') \ - .replace('\\n', '').replace('\n', '').replace('\"', '').replace('【', '').replace('】', '') \ - .replace('\n', '').replace('\\\\', '').replace(',', '').replace(':', '').replace(';', '') \ - .replace('[', '').replace(']', '').replace('(', '').replace(')', '') # 去掉标点符 - if content.isalnum(): - continue - result_json['content'] = content - fw1.write(content + '\n') - result_json['tag'] = 0 - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - i += 1 - fw.close() - return - - -def pos_data_process(input_file, output_file): - raw_data = pd.read_csv(input_file, usecols=[1], header=0) - fw = codecs.open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - result_json = {} - print(len(raw_data)) - fw1 = codecs.open('../data/word2vec.train.data', 'a', encoding='utf-8') - for i in range(len(raw_data)): - print(i) - try: - content = raw_data.ix[i][0] - except IndexError: - result_json['content'] = None - if content == '[]' or content is None: - continue - else: - content = content.replace('‘', '').replace('’', '').replace('<', '').replace('>', '').replace('\\"', '') \ - .replace('\\n', '').replace('\n', '').replace('\"', '').replace('【', '').replace('】', '') \ - .replace('\n', '').replace('\\\\', '').replace(',', '').replace(':', '').replace(';', '') \ - .replace('[', '').replace(']', '').replace('(', '').replace(')', '') # 去掉标点符号 - if content.isalnum(): - continue - result_json['content'] = content - word2vec_data = content - result_json['tag'] = 1 - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - for j in word2vec_data.split('\\n'): - fw1.write(j + '\n') - i += 1 - fw.close() - return - - -def mix_two_dataset(input_file1, input_file2, output_file): - fr1 = codecs.open(input_file1, 'r', encoding='utf-8') # neg data - fr2 = codecs.open(input_file2, 'r', encoding='utf-8') # pos data - json_data1 = [] - for line in fr1: - json_data1.append(line) - json_data2 = [] - for line in fr2: - json_data2.append(line) - fw = codecs.open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - result_json1 = {} - result_json2 = {} - for i in range(2000): - print(i) - try: - # print(json_data1[i]) - result_json1['content'] = json.loads(json_data1[i])['content'] - except IndexError: - result_json1['content'] = None - result_json1['tag'] = 0 - result_json1['id'] = str(i) - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json1, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - i += 1 - - try: - result_json2['content'] = json.loads(json_data2[i])['content'] - except IndexError: - result_json2['content'] = None - result_json2['tag'] = 1 - result_json2['id'] = str(i) - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json2, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - i += 1 - fw.close() - return - - -def mix_test_dataset(input_file1, input_file2, output_file): - fr1 = codecs.open(input_file1, 'r', encoding='utf-8') # neg data - fr2 = codecs.open(input_file2, 'r', encoding='utf-8') # pos data - json_data1 = [] - for line in fr1: - json_data1.append(line) - json_data2 = [] - for line in fr2: - json_data2.append(line) - fw = codecs.open(output_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - result_json1 = {} - result_json2 = {} - # generate different dataset 2000-2100 1900-2000 - for i in range(1900, 2000): - print(i) - try: - # print(json_data1[i]) - result_json1['content'] = json.loads(json_data1[i])['content'] - result_json1['tag'] = 0 - result_json1['id'] = str(i) - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json1, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - except IndexError: - result_json1['content'] = None - i += 1 - - try: - result_json2['content'] = json.loads(json_data2[i])['content'] - result_json2['tag'] = 1 - result_json2['id'] = str(i) - fw.write(json.dumps(result_json2, ensure_ascii=False) + '\n') - except IndexError: - result_json2['content'] = None - i += 1 - fw.close() - return - - if __name__ == '__main__': - # generate_full_datafile(filetype='train') - # generate_full_datafile(filetype='test') - # 'data/train_pos_all.txt' 'data/train_neg_all.txt' generate_imdb_train_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=10, count=250) - generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=2, count=500) + generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=2, count=50) diff --git a/util/tag_train_data.py b/util/tag_train_data.py deleted file mode 100644 index a5e5b7e..0000000 --- a/util/tag_train_data.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,109 +0,0 @@ -# -*- coding:utf-8 -*- - -import json, jieba, codecs -from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer - - -def Tagging(file, fw, istrain): - fjson = codecs.open(fw, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - f = codecs.open(file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - i = 1 - for line in f.readlines(): - print(i) - dict = {} - sent = json.loads(line.strip('\r\n').strip('\n')) - content0 = sent['content'] - dict['id'] = sent['id'] - # # jieba.load_userdict('./data/jieba_mydict.txt') # file_name 为文件类对象或自定义词典的路径 - document_cut = jieba.cut(content0) - result = '@+@'.join(document_cut) - results = result.split('@+@') - # # print(result) - wordlist = [] - for w in results: - wordlist.append(w) - dict['words'] = wordlist - if istrain == True: - tag = sent['tag'] - dict['label'] = tag - fj = json.dumps(dict, ensure_ascii=False) - fjson.write(fj + '\n') - i += 1 - f.close() - fjson.close() - - -def tfidf(trainfile, testfile, tfidf_k=60): - corpus = [] - f1 = codecs.open(trainfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = f1.readlines() - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = ' '.join(sent['words']) - corpus.append(sourc) - f1.close() - f1 = codecs.open(testfile, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - lines = f1.readlines() - for num, line in enumerate(lines): - sent = json.loads(line.rstrip('\n').rstrip('\r')) - sourc = ' '.join(sent['words']) - corpus.append(sourc) - f1.close() - # 从文件导入停用词表 - stpwrdpath = '../data/stop_words.txt' - stpwrd_dic = open(stpwrdpath, 'r') - stpwrd_content = stpwrd_dic.read() - # 将停用词表转换为list - stpwrdlst = stpwrd_content.splitlines() - stpwrd_dic.close() - vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer(stop_words=stpwrdlst, analyzer='word', token_pattern=r"(?u)\b\w+\b") - tfidf = vectorizer.fit_transform(corpus) - weight = tfidf.toarray() - word = vectorizer.get_feature_names() - keywords_tfidf = [] - fjson = codecs.open(path + "keywords_tfidf.txt", 'w', encoding='utf-8') - for cla in range(len(weight)): - # train = vectorizer.transform([txtdict[cla]]).toarray() - keys = [] - wdict = {} - for j in range(len(word)): - wdict[word[j]] = weight[cla][j] - wlist = sorted(wdict.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True) - count = 0 - for id, wtu in enumerate(wlist): - if wtu[1] > 0.0: - count += 1 - else: - break - if count <= tfidf_k: - k = count - else: - k = (int)(count * 0.5) - for id, wtu in enumerate(wlist): - if id >= k: - break - if wtu[1] > 0.0: - keys.append(wtu[0]) - else: - break - print(keys) - # keywords_tfidf.append(wlist[:max(tfidf_k,len(wlist))]) - keywords_tfidf.append(keys) - dicts = {} - dicts['keywords_tfidf'] = keys - fj = json.dumps(dicts, ensure_ascii=False) - fjson.write(fj + '\n') - fjson.close() - print('keywords len---', keywords_tfidf.__len__()) - return keywords_tfidf - - -if __name__ == '__main__': - path = '../data/' - tfidf_k = 100 - # trainfile = path + 'mix_data.json' - # fw1 = path + 'mix_data_train_data.json' - # Tagging(trainfile, fw1, istrain=True) - testfile = path + 'mix_test_data.json' - fw2 = path + 'mix_data_test_data.json' - Tagging(testfile, fw2, istrain=True) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/util/train_word2vec.py b/util/train_word2vec.py deleted file mode 100644 index 4d62cd4..0000000 --- a/util/train_word2vec.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,59 +0,0 @@ -# coding:utf-8 -from gensim.models import word2vec -import jieba -import logging -import codecs -import sys - - -# 此函数作用是对初始语料进行分词处理后，作为训练模型的语料 -def cut_txt(old_files, cut_file, charflag): - fo = codecs.open(cut_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - fi = codecs.open(old_files, 'r', encoding='utf-8') - if charflag: - for text in fi.readlines(): - new_text = text - # str_out = ' '.join(new_text).replace('，', '').replace('。', '').replace('？', '').replace('！', '') \ - # .replace('“', '').replace('”', '').replace('：', '').replace('…', '').replace('（', '').replace('）', '')\ - # .replace('—', '').replace('《', '').replace('》', '').replace('、', '').replace('‘', '') .replace('’', '')\ - # .replace('<', '') .replace('>', '') # 去掉标点符号 - str_out = ' '.join(new_text) - fo.write(str_out) - else: - for text in fi.readlines(): - new_text = jieba.cut(text, cut_all=False) # 精确模式 - # str_out = ' '.join(new_text).replace('，', '').replace('。', '').replace('？', '').replace('！', '').replace( - # '“', '').replace('”', '').replace('：', '').replace('…', '').replace('（', '').replace('）', '').replace( - # '—', '').replace('《', '').replace('》', '').replace('、', '').replace('‘', '').replace('’', '').replace( - # '<', '').replace('>', '') # 去掉标点符号 - str_out = ' '.join(new_text) - fo.write(str_out) - fo.close() - fi.close() - return cut_file - - -def model_train(train_file_name, save_model_file): # model_file_name为训练语料的路径,save_model为保存模型名 - # 模型训练，生成词向量 - logging.basicConfig(format='%(asctime)s : %(levelname)s : %(message)s', level=logging.INFO) - sentences = word2vec.Text8Corpus(train_file_name) # 加载语料 - # 第一个参数是训练语料，第二个参数是小于该数的单词会被剔除，默认值为5, 第三个参数是神经网络的隐藏层单元数，默认为100 - model = word2vec.Word2Vec(sentences, min_count=1, size=100, window=5, workers=4) - model.save(save_model_file) - model.wv.save_word2vec_format(save_model_name, binary=False) # 以二进制类型保存模型以便重用 - return model - - -if __name__ == '__main__': - if sys.argv[1] == 'char': - save_model_name = '../modfile/Char2Vec.mod' - cut_file = cut_txt('../data/word2vec.train.data', '../data/jieba_cut_char.txt', charflag=True) - print("*****cut char finished *******") - model_1 = model_train(cut_file, save_model_name) - print("*****char model finished *******") - elif sys.argv[1] == 'word': - save_model_name = '../modfile/Word2Vec.mod' - cut_file = cut_txt('../data/word2vec.train.data', '../data/jieba_cut_word.txt', charflag=False) - print("*****cut word finished *******") - model_1 = model_train(cut_file, save_model_name) - print("*****word model finished *******") \ No newline at end of file From bee5802a9262fdaf78d73b3dd5b0b7765acb47cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: guangxush Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:34:29 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] imdb data --- README.md | 9 +- adaptive_learning.py | 30 +- data/err_data/imdb_1.data | 26 +- data/err_data/imdb_2.data | 96 +- data/err_data/imdb_3.data | 71 +- data/err_data/imdb_4.data | 73 +- data/err_data/imdb_5.data | 78 +- data/err_data/imdb_6.data | 85 +- data/err_data/imdb_7.data | 76 +- data/err_data/imdb_8.data | 64 +- data/err_data/imdb_9.data | 63 +- data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv | 58 +- data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv | 114 +- data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv | 130 +- data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv | 148 +- data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv | 156 +- data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv | 168 +- data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv | 178 +- data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv | 184 +- data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv | 190 +- data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv | 56 +- data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv | 92 +- data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv | 116 +- data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv | 136 +- data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv | 146 +- data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv | 166 +- data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv | 180 +- data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv | 184 +- data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv | 188 +- data/part_data_all/all_test.txt | 100 + data/part_data_all/all_train.txt | 3000 +++++++++++++++++ data/part_data_all/train_0.txt | 200 -- data/part_data_all/train_1.txt | 600 ++-- data/part_data_all/train_2.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_3.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_4.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_5.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_6.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_7.txt | 800 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_8.txt | 798 ++--- data/part_data_all/train_9.txt | 800 ++--- imdb_analysis.py | 90 - logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log | 6 + logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log | 200 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log | 24 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log | 51 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log | 28 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log | 56 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log | 92 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log | 49 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log | 82 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log | 117 +- logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log | 180 +- model/model1.py | 30 +- model_use.py | 5 +- ...93.txt => test_classify_result_154494.txt} | 72 +- ...3.txt => train_classify_result_154494.txt} | 64 +- use_all_data.py | 36 + util/data_load.py | 25 +- util/data_process.py | 27 +- util/rawdata_process.py | 68 +- util/util.py | 20 +- 62 files changed, 7924 insertions(+), 6957 deletions(-) create mode 100644 data/part_data_all/all_test.txt create mode 100644 data/part_data_all/all_train.txt delete mode 100644 imdb_analysis.py create mode 100644 logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log rename result/{test_classify_result_154493.txt => test_classify_result_154494.txt} (50%) rename result/{train_classify_result_154493.txt => train_classify_result_154494.txt} (56%) create mode 100644 use_all_data.py diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 2fa6d7a..5b10acd 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ ### DataSet -- news +- IMDB data set ### Use @@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ #### dataset -- dataset A (40000/10): train model 1 and using 0.2 part validate the model -- dataset B (1000): using model 1 generate model2 data and train model 2 and using 0.2 part validate the model -- dataset C (1000): test the model1&model2 +- dataset A (3000/10): train model 1 and using 0.2 part validate the model +- dataset B (100): using model 1 generate model2 data and train model 2 and using 0.2 part validate the model +- dataset C (100): test the model1&model2 +- the positive data count is equals the count of the negative data diff --git a/adaptive_learning.py b/adaptive_learning.py index f7bb8a3..6086cac 100644 --- a/adaptive_learning.py +++ b/adaptive_learning.py @@ -7,17 +7,18 @@ from util import data_process from model.model2 import mlp2 from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data -from util.util import cal_err_ratio +from util.util import cal_err_ratio, cal_err_ratio_only import numpy as np from model_use import model_use -from model.model1 import lstm_attention_model, lstm_mul_model +from model.model1 import lstm_mul_model # train model1 -def model1(i): +def model1(index): results_flag = True - if i > 10: - i = i % 10 + i = index + if index >= 10: + i = index % 10 model2_file = './modfile/model2file/imdb.mlp.best_model.h5' result_file = './data/err_data/imdb_'+str(i)+'.data' data2_path = './data/model2_data/imdb_'+str(i)+'_data.csv' @@ -27,18 +28,17 @@ def model1(i): filepath = "./modfile/model1file/lstm.best_model_"+str(i)+".h5" check_pointer = ModelCheckpoint(filepath=filepath, monitor=monitor, verbose=1, save_best_only=True, save_weights_only=True) - early_stopping = EarlyStopping(patience=5) + early_stopping = EarlyStopping(patience=3) csv_logger = CSVLogger('logs/imdb_model2_mlp_' + str(i) + '.log') Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = data_process.get_imdb_part_data(raw_file=train_file) - model = lstm_mul_model() + vocab_size = data_process.get_imdb_vocab_size(train_file) + model = lstm_mul_model(vocab_size=vocab_size) model.fit(Xtrain, ytrain, batch_size=32, epochs=50, validation_data=(Xtest, ytest), verbose=1, shuffle=True, callbacks=[check_pointer, early_stopping, csv_logger]) if results_flag: print('Generate model2 dataset ...') result_path = './data/model2_data/imdb_' + str(i) + '_data.csv' model_file = './modfile/model1file/lstm.best_model_' - # test_pos_file = './data/part_data/test_pos_0.txt' - # test_neg_file = './data/part_data/test_neg_0.txt' test_file = './data/part_data_all/test_0.txt' generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file=model_file, result_path=result_path, test_file=test_file, count=10) print('Load result ...') @@ -49,10 +49,6 @@ def model1(i): results = mlp2_model.predict(X_test) label = np.argmax(results, axis=1) y_label = Y_test - print("pred:", end='') - print(label) - print("true:", end='') - print(y_label) make_err_dataset(result_path=result_file, label=label, x_test=X_test, y_test=y_label) cal_err_ratio(file_name='train', label=label, y_test=y_label) print('***** End Model1 Train *****') @@ -77,16 +73,12 @@ def model2(i): mlp_model2.fit(x_train, y_train, batch_size=128, epochs=100, verbose=1, shuffle=True, validation_data=(x_test, y_test), callbacks=[check_pointer, early_stopping, csv_logger]) if results_flag: - print('Generate submission ...') + print('Test Model2 ...') mlp_model2.load_weights(filepath=filepath) results = mlp_model2.predict(x_test) label = np.argmax(results, axis=1) y_test = np.argmax(y_test, axis=1) - print("pred:", end='') - print(label) - print("true:", end='') - print(y_test) - # make_err_dataset(result_path='./err_data/iris_1_error_data.csv', label=label, x_test=x_test, y_test=y_test) + cal_err_ratio_only(label=label, y_test=y_test) print('***** End Model2 Train *****') diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_1.data b/data/err_data/imdb_1.data index 19ecd19..4a692bd 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_1.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_1.data @@ -1,28 +1,32 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 @@ -33,19 +37,15 @@ 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_2.data b/data/err_data/imdb_2.data index a6b0883..4ba7529 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_2.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_2.data @@ -1,51 +1,49 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_3.data b/data/err_data/imdb_3.data index 7e8c8f5..c0bf28f 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_3.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_3.data @@ -1,49 +1,50 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_4.data b/data/err_data/imdb_4.data index ba6b725..df5df1e 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_4.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_4.data @@ -1,48 +1,45 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_5.data b/data/err_data/imdb_5.data index 631c8e1..dd90a10 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_5.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_5.data @@ -1,50 +1,42 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_6.data b/data/err_data/imdb_6.data index bb174f6..bd9f518 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_6.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_6.data @@ -1,43 +1,46 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_7.data b/data/err_data/imdb_7.data index 22e8468..9b47f92 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_7.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_7.data @@ -1,37 +1,43 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_8.data b/data/err_data/imdb_8.data index 080ccf7..171f99b 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_8.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_8.data @@ -1,32 +1,38 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/err_data/imdb_9.data b/data/err_data/imdb_9.data index 3cf1a30..5c82e2e 100644 --- a/data/err_data/imdb_9.data +++ b/data/err_data/imdb_9.data @@ -1,30 +1,37 @@ 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 -0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 -1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 +1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.0 +0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,0.0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv index 8020ab2..2a825d6 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_1_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv index 3e6ab1c..6ec2fff 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_2_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv index 05f1243..01ed8c9 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_3_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv index e52c107..9597a1d 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_4_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv index e0cc196..642a894 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_5_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv index b9d8c5c..9265952 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_6_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv index d3c26e3..f491896 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_7_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv index ab41090..6aeb82e 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_8_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv b/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv index 177dd7f..fa2fbd4 100644 --- a/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_data/imdb_9_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv index bcd0ed5..7d7e9d6 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_1_data.csv @@ -1,27 +1,33 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -29,25 +35,33 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 @@ -58,44 +72,30 @@ test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv index 47f83fb..9238150 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_2_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv index 303dad8..0c6a946 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_3_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv index 1c6ba39..50e228c 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_4_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv index 9d05c6c..cd1f9c7 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_5_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv index de760d5..823b0b0 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_6_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv index 5f9bf3d..95224ac 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_7_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv index d0318de..a62a310 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_8_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv b/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv index bd0f1bd..b2d54da 100644 --- a/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv +++ b/data/model2_result/imdb_9_data.csv @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ -test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test11,test -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +test1,test2,test3,test4,test5,test6,test7,test8,test9,test10,test +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 -0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 +1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,1 +1,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0 -0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 -1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,1 -0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 -1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 -0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1 -0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 -1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 -0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0 -0,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 -0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1 -1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0 -1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1 -1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 +1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,1 +0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1 +0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1 +0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0 +0,1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1 +0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/all_test.txt b/data/part_data_all/all_test.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5cdf0a --- /dev/null +++ b/data/part_data_all/all_test.txt @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9@@@1 +As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.@@@0 +Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.@@@1 +With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a "when it this stupid thing going to end?" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said "wow" at the end. Bad in every respect.@@@0 +This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.

Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.

If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.

@@@1 +this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead

Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!@@@0 +This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see.@@@1 +Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME!

PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $)

PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.

PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!@@@0 +CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.

CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).

Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.

In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.

CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.

The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.

Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.

His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.

So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.

Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.

Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.

5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.

The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.

In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.

Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.

A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.

Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.

CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.

WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.

Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.

Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.

Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10)@@@1 +I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.

1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.

2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.

3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.

In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.@@@0 +I was surprised at how fascinating this movie was. The performances were extremely good, especially by Rea as the compassionate no-nonsense detective.

Despite a low budget, no big FX or flashy camerawork, Citizen X somehow manages to surpass the majority of similar big Hollywood films by just. Telling. The. Story.

True stories tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang, and that's the case here, but apart from that, this is a highly recommended detective yarn.@@@1 +"Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.

The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.

The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.

History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.

If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.@@@0 +This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.

The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."

Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.

This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.

@@@1 +This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.

The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.

I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting.@@@0 +"Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

** Mild Spoilers **

Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"

The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.

More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.@@@1 +1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.

And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.

Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).@@@0 +The poor DVD video quality is the only reason why I gave this movie a 9 instead of a 10. That could have been so much better, this movie deserves it.

This is truly a movie that covers several themes simultaneously. If you do not like movies about serial killers, but are fascinated by the astonishing bureaucratic culture in the former Sovjet Union, this movie is a must-see anyway.

I can't compare it to "Silence of the Lambs" for several reasons. The way the serial killer is portrayed, has been done far much better in Citizen X. You see several details of his private life, because you "travel" along with the killer, which gives you some idea of the source of his constant anger and sexual frustration.

The only other movie I have seen that is as realistic as this one was "Henry - portrait of a serial killer". If you were fascinated by that movie you definitely need to take a look at Citizen X.@@@1 +When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.@@@0 +Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film@@@1 +While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.

And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.

???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?@@@0 +I first saw this in the movie theater when it came out, and the crowd was really into the movie which made the experience all the more fun. This is a great cast of characters, many big names in it, a few of which were not as recognized then as they are now. I think it's a great idea if you follow any of these actors, or have loved them in other movies, to add it to your watched list. Some of the scenes actually remind me of the type of well-done comedy as in The Birdcage or even The Clue, kind of odd spontaneous-appearing comedy, with some really professional delivery from these beloved actors. The movie did a great job at giving you some insight, perhaps even very realistic, into the culture of a daytime soap.@@@1 +I haven't read a biography of Lincoln, so maybe this was an accurate portrayal......

And maybe it's because I'm used to the equally alienating and unrealistic worshiping portrayals that unnaturally deify Lincoln as brilliant, honorable, and the savior of our country......

But why would they make a movie representing Lincoln as a buffoon? While Henry Fonda made an excellent Lincoln, his portrayal of him as an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple guy" seemed a little insulting.

[Granted, that was Bushie Jr.'s whole campaign, to make us think he was "just a regular guy" so we wouldn't care that he's a rich & privileged moron -- but that's a whole other story.]

Not only did the film show Lincoln as sort of a simple (almost simple-minded) kind of guy , the film states that Lincoln just sort of got into law by accident, and that he wasn't even that interested in the law - only with the falsely simplistic idea of the law being about rights & wrongs. In the film he's not a very good defense attorney (he lounges around with his feet on the table and makes fun of the witnesses), and the outcome is mostly determined by chance/luck.

Furthermore, partly because this was financed by Republicans (in reaction to some play sponsored by Democrats that had come out) and partly because it was just the sentiment of the times, the film is unfortunately religious, racist and conservative.

Don't waste your time on this film!@@@0 +Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts – above all – which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.

For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes – which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.@@@1 +Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.

I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).

The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.

But we liked the maggots.

So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.@@@0 +Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.@@@1 +It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.

At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:

1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.

2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?

3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.

4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.@@@0 +I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre.@@@1 +"Fly Me To The Moon" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.

It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.

I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie.@@@0 +Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today!@@@1 +This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!@@@0 +Rea, Sutherland, DeMunn, and von Sydow (in a small role) are all brilliant in their performances. Sutherland is particularly adept at this sort of role, where he must portray a character whose morality is, at first, uncertain to the audience. As is so often the case with Sutherland's characters, we must ask "is he a villian [in this case, a minor one], or a hero?"

This is a disturbing story, intelligently told, about the incompetence and fearful bureaucracy in the old Soviet Union that impeded the efforts of extremely competent people. As Sutherland's character wryly notes, "The measure of a bureaucracy is its ability not to make special exceptions". The "committee meeting" (between Rea and Sutherland's characters) after perestroika is enforced, with its revelations, has enormous emotional impact. You can feel the suffering of the dedicated people who labored in that system.

The handful of dramatic scenes portraying victims' family members adds emotional resonance to the impact of the story. This is seldom a feature of a film with this sickening subject matter, but effectively reminds us that the victims had lives, and were loved.

This is a sad, but very important film, which deserved its showcase on Canada's History Television.@@@1 +The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.

@@@0 +Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.@@@1 +This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.@@@0 +A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.

The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause – to catch the serial killer.

Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.

Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help.@@@1 +The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".

As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.

We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10.@@@0 +Caution: May contain spoilers...

I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.

As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.

Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.

A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.

Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.

Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.

9 out of 10 stars@@@1 +Greg Davis and Bryan Daly take some crazed statements by a terrorists, add some commentary by a bunch of uber-right reactionaries, ascribe the most extreme positions of the most fundamentalist Moslems on the planet to everyone who calls themselves a Moslem, and presents this as the theology of Islam. Maybe their next film will involve interviewing Fred Phelps and the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, adding commentary by some militant atheist "scholars, and call their film "What the World Needs to Know About Christianity." Ultimately, this film suffers from both poor production values and lack of attention to the most basic standards of journalism. Don't waste your time and money; just turn on your AM radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of days for free and you'll get the same message with the same level of intellectual analysis.@@@0 +A surprisingly complex and well crafted study of "The First" serial killer in the USSR. Set in the days of perestroika this intense piece is brought to full life with the performances of Stephen Reah and Donald Sutherland.

This examination of Cicatillo as a killer is well rounded and by hinting at some of his behaviors while out right showing others there is a subtlety that is compelling without being overtly graphic. Not for the weak of heart however as it's subject matter is often disturbing but necessary to it's full development of the main participants in this fact based story.

HBO has furnished us with an excellent film in an unusual manner. Congrats to the director and editor of this great piece. It is in my Top 10 Must see list.@@@1 +This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.

Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.

And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.

A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it.@@@0 +There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.

So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief

Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it .@@@1 +That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion@@@0 +I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.

I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.

Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well.@@@1 +Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.

What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false.

Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say "Shonuff!"@@@0 +Spoilers - in as far as I describe characters and their relation to the plot.

This is a quality film. The subject matter is at once grim and gripping. The dogged determination of Stephen Rea's character, Burakov, is simply captivating. With any due apologies to him, his hangdog, continually put-upon expression serves the character well. He is, as we in England would say of the Inspector Taggart TV series character, bound to be grim because he sees three murders a week. Well, that's not strictly accurate as Chikatila operated over a number of years...

You get a real sense of the blankwall resistance of the USSR bureaucracy, brilliantly portrayed by Joss Ackland (who often seems made for this sort of role).

A key character (and I write this as the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is being shown on BBC1) is the Donald Sutherland character "Mikhail Fetisov". His quiet support of Burakov is steadfast. And it endures through Perestroika, and drives the involvement of the FBI for profiling. Brilliant.

This is a must-see, as far as I am concerned.@@@1 +This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...

The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.

To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?@@@0 +This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved.

I rate this film 10/10@@@1 +The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.@@@0 +"Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B)@@@1 +I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies…until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses.

The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.

For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help.

There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.

The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.

The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways.

The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.

The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law.

The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say… which is what the documentary did.

What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.@@@0 +Here's an oddity: a modern-day film about a serial killer that has no fight scenes, nobody seen dying, no car chases and no loud noises.....and it takes place in Russia. There are only two short action scenes but they are horrific.

The rest of the story is detective work, and how much red tape the poor detective had to go through to solve the murders. This is a very somber movie, and "somber" best describes the personality of the hero (Stephen Rea), as well. Yet, the story is not depressing and it's very interesting all the way through.

Rea is outstanding as the determined, harried-looked detective. Jeffrey DeMunn is downright scary as the killer. Donald Sutherland's Russian accent is suspect but he plays the only character in this film that has some warmth.

Once again, the story is dotted with liberal agendas, here and there, with not one but two references to bias against gays, the total validity of secular psychology, police and government officials being boorish/crude/bigoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Otherwise, it's an intelligent and refreshingly low-key crime film. This is a somewhat unique film that probably is not well-known but is well-liked by the people who have seen it. Since it's based on a true-life account of this killer, it's all the more chilling. Don't pass this by just because you haven't anything about it.@@@1 +It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.

One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.

When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.@@@0 +There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.@@@1 +I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.@@@0 +This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see.@@@1 +You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?

This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.

xx@@@0 +This has to be one the best movies about serial killers that I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who absolutely loved Silence of the Lambs. HBO has hit the jackpot here. This film is compelling from the first moment until the last.

This film has so many underlying themes its hard to tell exactly what it is about. It chronicles the decade-long search for the Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Stephen Rea gives a brilliantly reserved performance as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation, and Donald Sutherland gives an even more involving performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him. Both of their performances are subtle masterpieces---Rea begins naive and unwilling to compromise, while Sutherland begins detached and almost amused by the situation. Towards the end, Rea becomes more world-weary and beaten by the system, while Sutherland finds himself more passionate and idealistic.

In any other movie, I would have said that Sutherland's performance stands out above the rest, but here even it is rivaled by Jeffrey DuMann, as the serial killer himself. DuMann brilliantly creates a character here who inspires empathy rather than the hatred we think we would find---he is a monster, but he doesn't want to be, and we get the idea that he is just as disgusted with what he does as we are. He is tortured, ashamed, but vicious as well.

If you can take the incredibly dark subject matter, (and it is *very* disturbing), then you should see this movie.@@@1 +Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.

The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.

The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.

For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.@@@0 +Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen.

It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.

I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me.@@@1 +ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to.@@@0 +I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.

Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.

CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV@@@1 +The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?!@@@0 +Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.

Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.

Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane?

I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.

But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.

Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.

The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.

The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together.@@@1 +When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.@@@0 +It's very very funny. You know, just like a comedy is supposed to be. It also looks very very good, like a Hollywood Spectacular should. So, what more do you want? Howz about a very VERY good Sally Fields. She is so much better here than in anything else I've ever seen her in, and she looks so damn good. This movie is all you need to understand why she's a Star. Those eyes! Like a silent movie star, but better. In fact, everyone's eyes are so good. I used to pretend to be a bad TV soap actor with my girlfriend. We'd do that thing where you look real fast from one eye to the other of your partner. They don't do that at all in Soap Dish. Great. The Eyes Have It! (sorry)

There's so many terrific performances, its fun just waiting for each of them to reappear. There's a whole workshop going on with Kevin Kline on how to Overact very very subtly. Got that? Yeah, he's damn good. So is Robert Downey, Jr. who has since made sumthin of a career of playing the Slick, Slimy Executive. Cathy Moriarity, while not the most gifted actress, is so charismatic and riveting, especially when she's angry. And even Whoopi Goldberg is decent, her natural timing giving here somewhat flat delivery a little Zing. OK, no Whoopi Bashing, I hear ya.

And then, there's the Hair. Soap Dish was made at the end of the BIG Hair Eighties, so the ridiculous doos are like a great character in themselves. They get bigger and sillier, just like your's did. Yeah, we got pictures.

Soap Dish is better than I thought it'd be, better that I wanted it to be. I'm sick of Movies that tell me I'm supposed to care about shallow, self centered, semi-talented egomaniacs, ie. TV Soap Actors. Soap Dish seems happy just to have me laugh at 'em. Thank You.@@@1 +I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.

If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by "Abraham Lincoln" (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.

It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film.@@@0 +Although the word megalmania is used a lot to describe Gene Kelly, and sometimes his dancing is way too stiff, you have to admit the guy knows how to put on a show. In American In Paris, he choreographs some outstanding numbers, some which stall the plot, but are nonetheless amazing to look at. (Check out Gene Kelly's "Getting Out Of Bed Routine" for starters)

Gene Kelly stars as a GI who is based out of Paris, he stayed there to paint, soon he is a rich woman's gigolo, but he really LOVES SOMEONE ELSE! Hoary story sure, but the musical numbers save the show here! I really loved Georges Gu¨¦tary's voice work in this one. His 'Stairway to Paradise' and his duet with Le Gene on 'S Wonderful' is 's marvelous'. Oscar Levant and Leslie Caron I can take or leave. All in all, a pretty good, but not dynamite movie.@@@1 +When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"@@@0 +The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by!@@@1 +Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy.@@@0 +What makes for Best Picture material? The Oscars have come in for a lot of stick for rewarding overblown spectacles that have aged poorly, and ignoring the "auteurs" who would be deified in decades to come. It wasn't because Hollywood was against art or creativity. The Academy Awards are the selections made by the industry itself, and that is why, at least in the classic era, they tended to reward the greatest collaborations, the most sensational meetings of creative minds.

The Arthur Freed unit at MGM had been bound for Oscar-winning glory for several years by this point; it was only a matter of time before Freed, aided by his strongest director Vincente Minnelli and some the finest musical stars in the business, would land a Best Picture. Freed had arguably done more to raise the status of the musical than anyone else, crafting pictures which wove story and song together without losing the dynamic spectacle of the 30s musicals. The point about Freed musicals, is that the lyrics of the songs, unlike those of Hammerstein or Lerner, don't have to tell or even relate to the stories. What's important is that the tone of the song and the way it is presented fit into the structure of the film.

An American in Paris was the first of three Freed musicals (the other two being Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon) which took existing classic numbers out of their original context and made them work in a completely unrelated story. The words don't fit the plot, but the routines fit the show. So, when Gene Kelly sings I Got Rhythm, he hasn't even got a girl yet, but the way it's done with the French kids joining in is a great bit of characterisation, and the upbeat tune and dance gives the movie the little lift it needs at this point. An American in Paris also uses the rule-breaking allowed in the genre to add little unconventional flights of fancy to tell the story, such as the series of dances which accompany the description of Leslie Caron's character.

And what better director for this project than Minnelli, himself a painter and a pianist? At this time there wasn't really anyone who had a better feel for Technicolor. While some directors would saturate each scene in one colour or fill the screen with clashing shades, Minnelli's colour schemes are tightly controlled but never look forced. In the opening scenes the tones are fairly muted, but not drab, and in particular there is an absence of red. During Oscar Levant and Georges Guetary's meeting in the café, a few more vibrant shades are introduced. Then, during the first musical number, "By Strauss" Minnelli gradually brings in splashes of red – a table cloth, a bunch of roses – until it eventually dominates, as if the song has awoken the picture's colour scheme. For most of the songs, the colours are choreographed as intricately as the people. However, in some numbers, such as "Tra-la-la" he keeps the shades the same and instead opens out the space as the song swells up and the characters become more animated.

The Achilles' heel of An American in Paris is its story. I personally find the romantic angle particularly unpalatable, playing as it does like a last hurrah for the misogynistic love stories that reigned supreme in the 30s; the headstrong, independent woman gets rejected while the meek, delicate girl is harassed into loving the hero. Even if you don't mind that, it is difficult to connect emotionally with the story because it is constantly overshadowed by the songs and dances. Compare this to Singin' in the Rain, which doesn't really have as many great routines or memorable set-pieces as An American in Paris, but it has a winning storyline. Singin' in the Rain was overlooked at the 1952 Oscars, yet it is regarded as a classic of the genre today. But I think people sometimes forget that cinema is an all-encompassing form of visual entertainment, not just a means of telling a story. An American in Paris is not deep or engaging or tear-jerking but, like a certain DeMille picture that won the top award the following year, it certainly is a great show.@@@1 +Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.

1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.

I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.

every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.

The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.

Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.

The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.

There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.@@@0 +This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.

A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.@@@1 +This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.

The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.@@@0 +The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, "An American in Paris", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.

Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancée of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.

The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to "Our Love Is Here to Stay" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. "I Got Rhythm" and "S'Wonderful" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while "Embraceable You" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in "On the Town" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.

As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise", George Guétary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras.@@@1 +From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.

I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice.@@@0 +This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.

The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one.

The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.

When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work.

But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.

One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.

8/10@@@1 +Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.

Potential minor spoilers ahead.

I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.

The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.

What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.

The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.

Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".@@@0 +An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin.

The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include "I Got Rhythm," "'S Wonderful," and "Our Love is Here to Stay". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the "songbook" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is "The American in Paris" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.

It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.

Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a "real" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, "Who's Gene Kelly?" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.

Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.

Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.

Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.

Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of "Stairway to Paradise"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's "Concerto in F" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)

The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.

There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).

Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.

Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, "An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance." An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good." The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.

The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)

Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film." It was his only Oscar.@@@1 +One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.

Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?

Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.@@@0 +An American in Paris is a wonderful musical about an American painter living in Paris for inspiration. He meets a rich woman who admires his paintings on the street and she believes she can get his work to be even more popular to the public, e.g. in a museum. Golden Globe nominated Gene Kelly as the artist Jerry Mulligan is just perfect at both singing and especially dancing. He also meets the main girl Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) who is engaged to his best friend. He can't help his feelings for this girl, even after he finds out who she is engaged to. Filled with nice romance and wonderful song and dance, this is a very good musical film. It may drag slightly with his dancing dream sequence, i.e. The American in Paris ballet, but there is a good happy ending. It won the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay and Best Picture, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Minnelli and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Millenni (Liza's father). Gene Kelly was number 66 on The 100 Movie Stars, and he was number 15 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, "I Got Rhythm" was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 9 on 100 Years of Musicals, it was number 39 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, it was number 68 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!@@@1 +Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.

La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.

La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever.@@@0 +If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.

The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.

Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guétary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.

Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guétary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.

I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.

But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.

I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.

The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow.@@@1 +This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.

As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.

And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story.

I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.

This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.@@@0 +... Oxford, Mississippi, at least. Okay, the Paris we get is Paris, Culver City apart from the Establishing library footage of the real McCoy but it IS Paris in spirit than which nothing, nowhere, is better. Okay, Kelly is no Astaire but then who is and Caron is no Hepburn, ditto but Alan Lerner is light years ahead of the vastly overrated Comden and Green who scripted Kelly's other 'big' 50s musical Singin' In The Rain (a curious replication of lyricists writing screenplays featuring songs by OTHER lyricists and just to balance things the Gershwin numbers are far superior to the Arthur Freed/Nacio Herb Brown numbers so Alan Lerner didn't have to feel too outclassed). The story needn't detain us any more than the anomalies -Kelly hasn't got change of a match and is a painter, i.e. bohemian, yet he is able to scare up a perfectly good suit at a few hours notice when Foch invites him to dinner at her hotel; in the well-documented Love Is Here To Stay sequence the lovers are strangely unmolested by passers-by, other lovers and the bridge in the background is totally free of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic - this is, after all, a feelgood musical so it stands or falls by the score and in this case it stands four square. As feel good musicals go it's definitely in the top 10.@@@1 +If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!!@@@0 +When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them.

It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).

This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades.@@@1 +This was a complete disappointment. The acting isn't bad, but the production was just so bad that at times I felt I needed to stop it, but I sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. It is o.k. if you are o.k. with cheesy moral plots and don't mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues Whitman. If you want a cheesy fictional story go for it.@@@0 +The story and music (George Gershwin!) are wonderful, as are Levant, Guetary, Foch, and, of course, Kelly. One thing's missing, and that thing is a good leading lady. I'm sorry, Leslie Caron bothers me. Anyway, despite her, the plot moves along nicely with the famous (and deservedly so) Ballet. Oh the colours, the dazzling reds, blues, greens, and yellows. Musn't forget the beiges as well. ; ) I just adore the contrast between the Beaux Arts Ball (completely black and white costumes) and the ever-so-brilliant Ballet.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Please, by all means see it, and enjoy it, because though it isn't the best, it is MARVELOUS. But be sure not to forget that other Gene Kelly musical with the 20 year old girl that was catapulted to stardom just afterward.@@@1 +This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.

If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.

The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.

What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?@@@0 +An American in Paris is a showcase of Gene Kelly. Watch as Gene sings, acts and dances his way through Paris in any number of situations. Some purely majestic, others pure corn. One can imagine just what Kelly was made of as he made this film only a year before "Singin' In The Rain". He is definately one of the all time greats. It is interesting to look at the parallels between the two films, especially in Kelly's characters, the only main difference being that one is based in Paris, the other in L.A.

Some have said that Leslie Caron's acting was less than pure. Perhaps Cyd Charisse, who was originally intended for the role could have done better, however Caron is quite believable in the role and has chemistry with Kelly. Oscar Levant's short role in this film gave it just what it needed, someone who doesn't look like Gene Kelly. Filling the role as the everyman isn't an easy task, yet Levant did it with as much class as any other lead.

The song and dance routines are all perfection. Even the overlong ballet at the end of the film makes it a better film with it than without. Seeing that there really wasn't much screen time to make such a loving relationship believable, Minnelli used this sequence to make it seem as if you'd spent four hours with them. Ingenious!

I would have to rate this film up with Singin' since it is very similar in story and song. Singin' would barely get the nod because of Debbie Reynolds uplifting performance.

Full recommendation.

8/10 stars.@@@1 +When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.@@@0 +Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.

The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.

8/10

@@@1 +For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.

Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.

Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.@@@0 +Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run.

To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song.@@@1 +Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.

This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.

The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).

The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.

It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.

If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).@@@0 +While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist.@@@1 +Oh, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this "Serendipitous" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.

@@@0 +I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10@@@1 +Not exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/all_train.txt b/data/part_data_all/all_train.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1f7a040 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/part_data_all/all_train.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3000 @@ +Bromwell High is a cartoon comedy. It ran at the same time as some other programs about school life, such as "Teachers". My 35 years in the teaching profession lead me to believe that Bromwell High's satire is much closer to reality than is "Teachers". The scramble to survive financially, the insightful students who can see right through their pathetic teachers' pomp, the pettiness of the whole situation, all remind me of the schools I knew and their students. When I saw the episode in which a student repeatedly tried to burn down the school, I immediately recalled ......... at .......... High. A classic line: INSPECTOR: I'm here to sack one of your teachers. STUDENT: Welcome to Bromwell High. I expect that many adults of my age think that Bromwell High is far fetched. What a pity that it isn't!@@@1 +Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.@@@0 +Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.

But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.

Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.

While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found "Life Stinks" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.

Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others.@@@1 +Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...

Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.

The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.

The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.

Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979).@@@0 +Brilliant over-acting by Lesley Ann Warren. Best dramatic hobo lady I have ever seen, and love scenes in clothes warehouse are second to none. The corn on face is a classic, as good as anything in Blazing Saddles. The take on lawyers is also superb. After being accused of being a turncoat, selling out his boss, and being dishonest the lawyer of Pepto Bolt shrugs indifferently "I'm a lawyer" he says. Three funny words. Jeffrey Tambor, a favorite from the later Larry Sanders show, is fantastic here too as a mad millionaire who wants to crush the ghetto. His character is more malevolent than usual. The hospital scene, and the scene where the homeless invade a demolition site, are all-time classics. Look for the legs scene and the two big diggers fighting (one bleeds). This movie gets better each time I see it (which is quite often).@@@1 +This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.

But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.

I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.@@@0 +This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).@@@1 +Sorry everyone,,, I know this is supposed to be an "art" film,, but wow, they should have handed out guns at the screening so people could blow their brains out and not watch. Although the scene design and photographic direction was excellent, this story is too painful to watch. The absence of a sound track was brutal. The loooonnnnng shots were too long. How long can you watch two people just sitting there and talking? Especially when the dialogue is two people complaining. I really had a hard time just getting through this film. The performances were excellent, but how much of that dark, sombre, uninspired, stuff can you take? The only thing i liked was Maureen Stapleton and her red dress and dancing scene. Otherwise this was a ripoff of Bergman. And i'm no fan f his either. I think anyone who says they enjoyed 1 1/2 hours of this is,, well, lying.@@@0 +This is not the typical Mel Brooks film. It was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable. Leslie Ann Warren made the movie, she is such a fantastic, under-rated actress. There were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more, and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so, but all in all, this is worth the price to rent and see it. The acting was good overall, Brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience. Again, Warren was the best actor in the movie, but "Fume" and "Sailor" both played their parts well.@@@1 +When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.@@@0 +This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.

Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.

I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.

All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.

It rates a 7.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.@@@1 +"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.@@@0 +Yes its an art... to successfully make a slow paced thriller.

The story unfolds in nice volumes while you don't even notice it happening.

Fine performance by Robin Williams. The sexuality angles in the film can seem unnecessary and can probably affect how much you enjoy the film. However, the core plot is very engaging. The movie doesn't rush onto you and still grips you enough to keep you wondering. The direction is good. Use of lights to achieve desired affects of suspense and unexpectedness is good.

Very nice 1 time watch if you are looking to lay back and hear a thrilling short story!@@@1 +The second attempt by a New York intellectual in less than 10 years to make a "Swedish" film - the first being Susan Sontag's "Brother Carl" (which was made in Sweden, with Swedish actors, no less!) The results? Oscar Wilde said it best, in reference to Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at the death of Little Nell." Pretty much the same thing here. "Interiors" is chock full of solemnly intoned howlers. ("I'm afraid of my anger." Looking into the middle distance: "I don't like who I'm becoming.") The directorial quotations (to use a polite term) from Bergman are close to parody. The incredibly self-involved family keep reminding us of how brilliant and talented they are, to the point of strangulation. ("I read a poem of yours the other day. It was in - I don't know - The New Yorker." "Oh. That was an old poem. I reworked it.") Far from not caring about these people, however, I found them quite hilarious. Much of the dialog is exactly like the funny stuff from Allen's earlier films - only he's directed his actors to play the lines straight. Having not cast himself in the movie, he has poor Mary Beth Hurt copy all of his thespian tics, intonations, and neurotic habits, turning her into an embarrassing surrogate (much like Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity").

The basic plot - dysfunctional family with quietly domineering mother - seems to be lifted more or less from Bergman's "Winter Light," the basic family melodrama tricked up with a lot of existential angst. It all comes through in the shopworn visual/aural tricks: the deafening scratching of a pencil on paper, the towering surf that dwarfs the people walking on the beach. etc, etc.

Allen's later "serious" films are less embarrassing, but also far less entertaining. I'll take "Interiors." Woody's rarely made a funnier movie.@@@0 +In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret…" according to film's official synopsis.

You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...

The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"?

Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.

Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.

Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.

******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin@@@1 +I don't know who to blame, the timid writers or the clueless director. It seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars (Angie, Charlie, Denise, Rosanna and Jon) that there wasn't enough left to really make a movie. This could have been very entertaining, but there was a veil of timidity, even cowardice, that hung over each scene. Since it got an R rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a 70-year-old woman and not Angie Harmon? Why does Sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships WITH TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ACTRESSES in the world? If they were only looking for laughs why not cast Whoopi Goldberg and Judy Tenuta instead? This was so predictable I was surprised to find that the director wasn't a five year old. What a waste, not just for the viewers but for the actors as well.@@@0 +THE NIGHT LISTENER (2006) **1/2 Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Bobby Cannavale, Rory Culkin, Joe Morton, Sandra Oh, John Cullum, Lisa Emery, Becky Ann Baker. (Dir: Patrick Stettner)

Hitchcockian suspenser gives Williams a stand-out low-key performance.

What is it about celebrities and fans? What is the near paranoia one associates with the other and why is it almost the norm?

In the latest derange fan scenario, based on true events no less, Williams stars as a talk-radio personality named Gabriel No one, who reads stories he's penned over the airwaves and has accumulated an interesting fan in the form of a young boy named Pete Logand (Culkin) who has submitted a manuscript about the travails of his troubled youth to No one's editor Ashe (Morton) who gives it to No one to read for himself.

No one is naturally disturbed but ultimately intrigued about the nightmarish existence of Pete being abducted and sexually abused for years until he was finally rescued by a nurse named Donna (Collette giving an excellent performance) who has adopted the boy but her correspondence with No one reveals that Pete is dying from AIDS. Naturally No one wants to meet the fans but is suddenly in doubt to their possibly devious ulterior motives when the seed is planted by his estranged lover Jess (Cannavale) whose sudden departure from their New York City apartment has No one in an emotional tailspin that has only now grown into a tempest in a teacup when he decides to do some investigating into Donna and Pete's backgrounds discovering some truths that he didn't anticipate.

Written by Armistead Maupin (who co-wrote the screenplay with his former lover Terry Anderson and the film's novice director Stettner) and based on a true story about a fan's hoax found out has some Hitchcockian moments that run on full tilt like any good old fashioned pot-boiler does. It helps that Williams gives a stand-out, low-key performance as the conflicted good-hearted personality who genuinely wants to believe that his number one fan is in fact real and does love him (the one thing that has escaped his own reality) and has some unsettling dreadful moments with the creepy Collette whose one physical trait I will leave unmentioned but underlines the desperation of her character that can rattle you to the core.

However the film runs out of gas and eventually becomes a bit repetitive and predictable despite a finely directed piece of hoodwink and mystery by Stettner, it pays to listen to your own inner voice: be careful of what you hope for.@@@1 +This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.@@@0 +You know, Robin Williams, God bless him, is constantly shooting himself in the foot lately with all these dumb comedies he has done this decade (with perhaps the exception of "Death To Smoochy", which bombed when it came out but is now a cult classic). The dramas he has made lately have been fantastic, especially "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo". "The Night Listener", despite mediocre reviews and a quick DVD release, is among his best work, period.

This is a very chilling story, even though it doesn't include a serial killer or anyone that physically dangerous for that matter. The concept of the film is based on an actual case of fraud that still has yet to be officially confirmed. In high school, I read an autobiography by a child named Anthony Godby Johnson, who suffered horrific abuse and eventually contracted AIDS as a result. I was moved by the story until I read reports online that Johnson may not actually exist. When I saw this movie, the confused feelings that Robin Williams so brilliantly portrayed resurfaced in my mind.

Toni Collette probably gives her best dramatic performance too as the ultimately sociopathic "caretaker". Her role was a far cry from those she had in movies like "Little Miss Sunshine". There were even times she looked into the camera where I thought she was staring right at me. It takes a good actress to play that sort of role, and it's this understated (yet well reviewed) role that makes Toni Collette probably one of the best actresses of this generation not to have even been nominated for an Academy Award (as of 2008). It's incredible that there is at least one woman in this world who is like this, and it's scary too.

This is a good, dark film that I highly recommend. Be prepared to be unsettled, though, because this movie leaves you with a strange feeling at the end.@@@1 +The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.

I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.

The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.

As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.

Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.@@@0 +When I first read Armistead Maupins story I was taken in by the human drama displayed by Gabriel No one and those he cares about and loves. That being said, we have now been given the film version of an excellent story and are expected to see past the gloss of Hollywood...

Writer Armistead Maupin and director Patrick Stettner have truly succeeded!

With just the right amount of restraint Robin Williams captures the fragile essence of Gabriel and lets us see his struggle with issues of trust both in his personnel life(Jess) and the world around him(Donna).

As we are introduced to the players in this drama we are reminded that nothing is ever as it seems and that the smallest event can change our lives irrevocably. The request to review a book written by a young man turns into a life changing event that helps Gabriel find the strength within himself to carry on and move forward.

It's to bad that most people will avoid this film. I only say that because the average American will probably think "Robin Williams in a serious role? That didn't work before!" PLEASE GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE! Robin Williams touches the darkness we all must find and go through in ourselves to be better people. Like his movie One Hour Photo he has stepped up as an actor and made another quality piece of art.

Oh and before I forget, I believe Bobby Cannavale as Jess steals every scene he is in. He has the 1940's leading man looks and screen presence. It's this hacks opinion he could carry his own movie right now!!

S~@@@1 +This film is one giant pant load. Paul Schrader is utterly lost in his own bad screenplay. And his directing is about as comatose as it can be without his actually having been sleepwalking during the process.

The worst though is Woody Harrelson, whom I ordinarily like when he's properly cast. He plays "the walker", a homosexual man in D.C. who plays social companion to the bored wives of the Washington elite. He couldn't have been more one dimensional if he had been cut out of a magazine and bounced around in front of the camera on a popsicle stick. His "southern accent" is that "off the rack" version that decrescendos from the beginning to the end of every line he delivers, as though the heat and humidity of the South is still draining him of every ounce of energy he has. It is monotonous. But, his is not the worst accent in the movie. His "boyfriend", played by Moritz Bleibtreau, attempts to affect some kind of a Mid East accent that is so clumsy he can barely deliver the bad lines written for him. He is incapable of rolling his r's in spite of the fact that in real life he is German, and speaks several languages - one of them being Italian! That's kind of a good reason to cast someone else don't ya think?

From the story, to the screenplay, to the directing, to the camera work, to the performances by the leads, this movie is bad from beginning to end. The only tolerable moments in this film came from three supporting actresses: Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Only these three managed to make it through this movie with their dignity in tact. In fact, all three are excellent, in spite of being trapped in a really bad film. Ufortunately, no one could ever be good enough to redeem this endless series of flaws. If you like these three actresses, watch them in something else. This movie is not worth your time.@@@0 +I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.

Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.@@@1 +The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.

If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.@@@0 +There are many illnesses born in the mind of man which have been given life in modern times. Constant vigilance or accrued information in the realm of Pyschosis, have kept psychologists, counselors and psychiatrists busy with enough work to last them decades. Occasionally, some of these mental phenomenon are discover by those with no knowledge of their remedy or even of their existence. That is the premise of the film entitled " The Night Listner." It tells the story of a popular radio host called Gabriel Noon (Robin Williams) who spends his evenings enthralling his audiences with vivid stories about Gay lifestyles. Perhaps its because his show is losing it's authentic veneer which causes Noon to admit he is no longer himself. Feeling abandoned by both his lover Jess (Bobby Cannavale) and his and best friend (Joe Morton), he seeks shelter in his deepening despair and isolation. It is here, a mysterious voice in the night asks him for help. Noon needs to feel useful and reaches out to the desperate voice which belongs to a 14 year old boy called Peter (Rory Culkin). In reading the boy's harrowing manuscript which depicts the early life and sexual abuse at the hands of his brutal parents, Noon is captivated and wants to help. However, things are not what they seem and Noon soon finds himself en-wrapped in an elusive and bizarre tale torn right out of a medical nightmare. This movie is pure Robin Williams and were it not for Toni Collette who plays Donna D. Logand, Sandra Oh as Anna and John Cullum as pop, this might be comical. Instead, this may prove to be one of William's more serious performances. ***@@@1 +Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.

Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.

I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV shows.@@@0 +I enjoyed The Night Listener very much. It's one of the better movies of the summer.

Robin Williams gives one of his best performances. In fact, the entire cast was very good. All played just the right notes for their characters - not too much and not too little. Sandra Oh adds a wonderful comic touch. Toni Collette is great as the Mom, and never goes over the top. Everyone is very believable.

It's a short movie, just under an hour and a half. I noticed the general release version is nine minutes shorter than the Sundance version. I wonder if some of the more disturbing images were cut from the movie.

The director told a story and did it in straightforward fashion, which is a refreshing change from many directors these days who seem to think their job is to impress the audience rather than tell a story and tell it well.

Do not be sucker punched by the previews and ads. It is not a Hitchcockian thriller. See The Night Listener because you want to see a good story told well. If you go expecting Hitchcock you will be disappointed.

My only complaint with the movie was the ending. The director could have left a little more to the audience's imagination, but this is a minor quibble.@@@1 +This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.

I thought "The Walker" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.

The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class?

It's sad that "The Walker" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing.@@@0 +The Night Listener is probably not one of William's best roles, but he makes a very interesting character in a somewhat odd but very different movie. I can guarantee you that you have never seen this kind of movie before. Some people maybe won't like the slow pacing of this movie, but I think it's the great plus of the movie. It is definitely one of the top movies that have come out the year 2006. It has a intriguing performance in a movie with a great content, dramatic feeling. This is no americanized movie. Neither is it a predictable movie. You just feel that it is a movie that has secrets which you have a hard time to determine what the outcome of it may be. This is no excellent movie that has everything, but hell, it's a damn good and very original movie.@@@1 +This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.

The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining

The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)

If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning@@@0 +Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the "reality" of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems.@@@1 +A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.

With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.

The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?

A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss.@@@0 +The Night Listener held my attention, with Robin Williams shining as a New York City radio host who becomes enamored with his friendship with a 14 year old boy (Rory Culkin) who is very ill. Williams has never met the boy in person, as they have only been in contact by talking on the telephone. However, Williams' ex-boyfriend (nice job from Bobby Cannavale) raises doubt about the boy, which prompts Williams to arrange a meeting with him in person. What follows makes a permanent impact on Williams in a way he does not expect. I will leave it at that. Toni Collette also stars.

I enjoyed this film, with Toni Collette giving a memorable portrayal of Culkin's adoptive mother. Sandra Oh also starred as Williams' friend. The Night Listener is inspired by actual events, and it has a somber, almost creepy silence throughout. At times it is predictable, no thanks to some of the reviews I read before seeing the movie and just due to logic, but I liked it anyway. I enjoy Williams in roles like this, more so than his comedic characters so that was an added bonus for me. Recommended. 8/10@@@1 +I saw this movie at a drive-in in 1959. Until "Howard the Duck" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired "My Mother, The Car." Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.@@@0 +Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself.

He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.

Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.@@@1 +Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their "hot rod" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the "ghost" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.@@@0 +If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.

Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.

One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.@@@1 +"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" was one of the many '50s movies about hot-rodding teens encountering the supernatural. In this case, the teens can't pay the rent for their hangout and get evicted. With nowhere else to go, they decide on an apparently haunted house. As you may have guessed, once they arrive, some weird things start happening. And there's a twist at the end.

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't seen in other movies, but it's nice entertainment nonetheless. My favorite character was the foul-mouthed parrot. Well, let me rephrase that: he didn't talk like a character in a Quentin Tarantino movie, but he said things that we don't expect out of a bird. The movie's pure hokum, but harmless.@@@0 +I absolutely LOVED this film! I do not at all relate to all the other comments I have read about it. I was COMPLETELY enthralled through every second!

I found the story gripping, the acting intense, and the direction spot-on. I would literally jump every time the phone would ring close to the end of the movie. Even though there was nothing "scary" about the story itself, I was soundly on edge through the whole movie - and for the rest of my evening.

I found that there were so many perfect choices made...the casting, the script, the little bits of humor sprinkled in it. There were so many points where the film could've gone for the cheap thrill, but it never did, and that for me put this movie above so many of the mediocre thrillers that have come out lately...and for the last number of years.@@@1 +"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: "We thought we'd come out for some fresh air"...Dad: "Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?"), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-"Scooby Doo"-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from ****@@@0 +This Night Listener is better than people are generally saying. It has weaknesses, and it seems to be having a genre identity crisis, no doubt, but I think its creepy atmosphere and intriguing performances make up for this. The whole thing feels like one of those fireside "this happened to a friend of a friend of mine" ghost stories. One big complaint about the movie is the pacing: but the slow and sometimes awkward pacing is deliberate. Everything that unfolds in this movie is kept well within the realm of possibility, and real life just sort of plods along—no? So there are no flashy endings or earth-shattering revelations, no "showdown" scenes. Thank Heaven. You have to get into the zone when watching this movie, forget your reservations and your expectations of what makes a (conventionally)good movie. Williams isn't terrific, but he easily meets the needs of the story, plus his character is supposed to be somewhat generic ("No One") as he is the Everyman, the avatar by which we ourselves enter the story. Toni Collette's performance should be nominated for an Oscar (even if she maybe shouldn't win it). Give it a shot. For quality and content alone, The Night Listener is surely in the top twenty percent of movies coming out these days.@@@1 +The characters are unlikeable and the script is awful. It's a waste of the talents of Deneuve and Auteuil.@@@0 +When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.

If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).

So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).

2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.

3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).

Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of "tension and release" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.

4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.

In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben@@@1 +Kareena Kapoor in a bikini hmmmmmmmm.

Akshay Kumar...

Anil Kapoor....

Maybe Saif....

Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....

Good Banner..

Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....

Not one good reason not to see this movie....

Or so i thought ........Didnt these people make JBJ...

Why o Why did i forget that.

For all the criticism the first half of the movie isn't that bad...

There is some intrigue and YOU FEEL A SORT OF IRRITATION MIXED WITH EXCITEMENT THAT I FELT WHEN SEEING GUY RITCHIE MOVIES LIKE LOCK STOCK AND SNATCH.

Kareena Kapoor is sizzling in a very skinny model sort of way.

Akshay Kumar is Akshay Kumar as only he can be.

Anil Kapoor is annoying but kind of funny, YOU ALMOST FORGET THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIM.

Saif is sidey ala Main Khiladi.. once again.

There is the occasional laugh and a few chuckles, and a few goosebumps during the kareena-saif love story (kareena in the rain, behind me on my bike hmmmmmmm).

BUT MOSTLY THIS HALF PROMISES MORE THAN IT DELIVERS.....

WHICH MAKES THE SECOND HALF ALL THE MORE UNBEARABLE....

There was almost a cheer when the interval came not only because because of the wet kareena because of what people thought were the things to come.

INSTEAD WE WERE TREATED TO MIND NUMBING TORTURE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO PUT IN WORDS.

Saif suddenly seam like a comic sidekick...

SUDDENLY THE SEXY KAREENA LOOKS ANOREXIC, YOU REALISE THAT THE SECOND LAST FLOOR IS NOW EMPTY AND HER FACE LOOKS TO BIG FOR HER BODY ( only girls can notice this and make other guys notice the second last floor was my observation).

ANIL KAPOOR AND HIS SIDEKICKS GET ON YOUR NERVES.

Akshay Kumar is the only one who carries off the madness to some extent but even he become intolerable after a while.

ALL THE WHILE YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO ONE ABSURDITY AFTER THE OTHER.

WHY??!! WHAT??!!! WHEN?!!! WHERE?!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS...

A collective gasp went trough the audience before every song in the second half, which were ordinary even without the movie around it.

Cannot relieve the trauma anymore....

CONCLUSION.

THIS MOVIE STARTS OF AS A BUZZ WHICH YOU FEEL COULD EVEN TURN OUT TO A HIGH BUT ENDS UP SLOWLY MOVING TOWARDS A HEADACHE AND THEN RAPIDLY TURNS INTO A FULL BLOWN MIGRAINE ATTACK.

Please don't watch this movie for any reason other than academic interest.

+s Cast, Akshay Kumar, first half.

+/-s what, when, how, who to much confusion.(need a book to fill this).

+s cast, the whole second half (need many pages to fill this).

total 3/10 (im trying to avoid the 1s and 2s too not seem to extreme but make no mistake this movie is unwatchable no matter how decent the first half is).@@@0 +Somewhat funny and well-paced action thriller that has Jamie Foxx as a hapless, fast-talking hoodlum who is chosen by an overly demanding U.S. Treasury Agent (David Morse) to be released on the streets of New York to find a picky computer thief/hacker (Doug Hutchinson), who stole forty-two million dollars from the treasury and left two guards shot dead.

"Bait" marks the sophomore feature for Antoine Fuqua ("The Replacement Killers") and he handles the task fairly well even though it doesn't top his first movie. What the two films have in common is the action sequences, which are flat-out excellent.

Foxx is pretty good here although his character is annoying in the beginning, but throughout the film, I began to catch on. Hutchinson is marvelous as the mastermind who can be ruthless as John Malkovich and patient as the late Laurence Olivier was in "Marathon Man". Morse is okay as the agent who comes up with the ingenious plan to get whoever did it at all cost.@@@1 +I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.@@@0 +The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of "Tintorera" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot.@@@1 +Vijay Krishna Acharya's 'Tashan' is a over-hyped, stylized, product. Sure its a one of the most stylish films, but when it comes to content, even the masses will reject this one. Why? The films script is as amateur as a 2 year old baby. Script is king, without a good script even the greatest director of all-time cannot do anything. Tashan is produced by the most successful production banner 'Yash Raj Films' and Mega Stars appearing in it. But nothing on earth can save you if you script is bland. Thumbs down!

Performances: Anil Kapoor, is a veteran actor. But how could he okay a role like this? Akshay Kumar is great actor, in fact he's the sole saving grace. Kareena Kapoor has never looked so hot. She looks stunning and leaves you, all stand up. Saif Ali Khan doesn't get his due in here. Sanjay Mishra, Manoj Phawa and Yashpal Sharma are wasted.

'Tashan' is a boring film. The films failure at the box office, should you keep away.@@@0 +This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "Dance of Death" (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, "The Cat and the Canary", "The Old Dark House", "Night of Terror" and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.

Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.

Dan Basinger 8/10@@@1 +The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.

I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".

The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.

The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.@@@0 +Aro Tolbukhin burnt alive seven people in a Mission in Guatemala in the 70's. Also he declared that he had murdered another 16 people (he used to kill pregnant women, and then he set them on fire).

This movie is a documentary that portraits the personality of Aro through several interviews with people that got to know him and through some scenes played by actors based on real facts.

"Aro Tolbukhin" is a serious work, so analytical, it's not morbid at all. Such a horrifying testimony about how some childhood trauma can turn a man into a monster.

*My rate: 7/10@@@1 +Summer season is here when the choices in the cinemas are limited to what's the hottest movie of the week, given 99.9% of the screens dedicated to screening it. OK, so I may exaggerate on the percentage, but you get my drift. Besides stuff from Hollywood, Bollywood too have their own share of highly anticipated blockbusters, and from some of the trailers shown, I'm hyped to watch them too. Tashan was billed as one of THE most highly anticipated for 2008, but I was quite surprised at the lower than low turnout at the cinemas. When I watched Jodha Akbar, it was a full house, but it wasn't for Tashan.

After watching it, I knew why. It was entertaining, but it was fundamentally weak. Just like it's literal English title, which means "Style", Tashan is all style, but little substance. Not that it doesn't have the usual star power, but scenes felt forced, and some bordered on a tad ridiculous, even for Bollywood standards I must say. Which is quite surprising given that Tashan is directed and written by Vijay Krishna Acharya, who wrote Dhoom and Dhoom 2, both of which I enjoyed tremendously.

In his rookie directorial outing with Tashan, while you can't fault his direction, you'd probably scratch your head over the plot, which was clunky at best. It tried to force too many things into the story, though credit be given where it allowed you some avenue to question character motivation, but that came a little too late, and only toward the finale, which left you guessing for just a moment before it latched into full blown action mimicking many a Thai action movie, with Hong Kong's wirework and Hollywood's ludicrous firearms and gunplay with zero recoil. And in a bid to include everything including the kitchen sink, you have an assortment of vehicles appearing, and the one that took the cake, in a Dhoom 2 homage, was the jetski boat in the middle of nowhere.

At best, Tashan can be enjoyed as unintentional comedy, and this is attributed to how the cast hammed up with their characters. Saif Ali Khan plays Jimmy Cliff, a call center executive who gives English tuition, only as a platform for fishing out new girlfriend material. His playboy ways gets junked aside when he meets with Pooja Singh (Kareena Kapoor), who's not exactly who she seems, the meek and sweet natured hottie. She engages Jimmy's services for her boss, mobster Bhaiyyaji (Anil Kapoor), who probably gets most of the laughs as he speaks broken English and phrases must like how an ah-beng does it. And to complete the quartet, Akshay Kumar plays Bachchan Pandey, an illiterate gangster for hire who got engaged by Bhaiyyaji to hunt down Jimmy and Pooja when they escape with money stolen from Bahiyyaji's business.

So begins a road trip of sorts, with friends who turned enemies, and enemies whom you know will become friends as the road trip wears on. Jimmy Cliff is probably the most implausible of all, because he goes from zero to hero, executing moves that would shame Rambo, in absolutely no time, which is quite out of character. Kareena Kapoor amps up the sex factor as she uses her charms to guile both men, and has plenty of opportunity to do so given the much touted bikini scenes, and other costumes that boast of plunging necklines or hemlines way above the knee. Every character has a backstory created, and I thought Akshay Kumar's Bachchan Pandey was probably the best, the most touching and the most fun of the lot, even though his character seemed a lot like a non-green Incredible Hulk with his gravity-defying leaps and power packing punches. His wounds also heal automatically, which impressively puts Wolverine to shame. And the best part is his theme song, which is damn alpha-male and played in ra-ra mode each time he takes on adversaries.

But sad to say, that's the only tune that is memorable, something that cheers "Bachchan- Pandey-Bachchan-Pandey". For most Bollywood movies I watch, I will usually be able to, despite the obvious language gaps, emerge from screenings humming a tune or two. I wasn't able to do that after Tashan, because the songs unfortunately just weren't catchy at all. Usually the song/dance routine works well into the storyline without any necessity to bring the characters out of the current scene or location. That I enjoy, versus plucking them out and plonking them into extreme settings high atop a mountain, or atop jagged rocks on the beach front.

Tashan probably didn't take itself too seriously, but coming from Vijay Krishna Acharya's story, you probably wanted something a little more decent rather than the ridiculous, and for continuity to be a little more careful as well. Billed as a blockbuster, now I can start to understand why the crowds have already shunned this one. Despite Akshay Kumr stealing the show, Tashan could have been better on the whole.@@@0 +After seeing several movies of Villaronga, I had a pretty clear opinion about him -- he concentrates too much on the personal aspect of the characters, forgetting about a rhythm of the movie. That is why, though having good critics, his movies never caught the broad audience attention. In ARo he follows the same line, but really improved on the rhythm, especially in the end of the movie. Frankly speaking, I slept through the first part, cause though the first part gives necessary information, it is really slow. Nevertheless the second part is absolutely marvelous and makes the whole movie the best movie ever made by Villaronga.

Recommended.@@@1 +Shame on Yash Raj films and Aditya Chopra who seems to have lost their intelligence over the years and providing steady fare of tripe in this piece of cinematic crap thats not even worth You Tube standards. I was gritting my teeth throughout the whole flick start to finish with the schizophrenic direction, plot line that never quite materialized and on the last scene I just felt ashamed that my country and its crorepati film makers can "THROW AWAY" crores on such stupidity. Shame on the actors for taking this work and even commenting on it as some piece of work they can own up to. Saif Ali Khan -completely disappointed in your choice of film. Kareen shows enough skin for the puberty stricken and Akshay comes up as the dim-wit. Anil another retard with a pubescent fascination for English. His cronies were commendable in their acting and with the bizarre cinematography scattered in the last 15 minutes, it was enough to pop a blood vessel. DON'T WASTe any brain cells, energy or your money to go see this- Go SEE / Rent AMU -with Konkana Sensharma instead- a beautiful piece of independent film thats ever come out of India.Intelligent, poignant and a wonderful story-tale that will touch everyone with intelligent actors and gave me hope that all is not lost in Indian cinema making.@@@0 +There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.

For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).

I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy.@@@1 +First lesson that some film makers (particularly those inspired by Hollywood) need to know - just 'style' does not sell. I guess Tashan when translated will mean style. Second, if you are hell bent on selling style, that does not spare you from having a decent story.

Tashan has some story which could have sufficed with some better director. But it is not slick. For example, all three - Saif, Kareena and Akshay - are narrators at different points in the story. But this setup is not utilized to properly. There could have been a better mix and match of their narrations. Actions sequences are from the seventies.

Cheoreography of the film is awful. I think Vaibhavi Merchant just sleep walked through this film. Vishal-Shekhar have put up a good score but it does not belong to this film. Why is there a sufi song (Dil Haara) in Tashan? Why is the cool Hinglish song (Dil Dance Maare) not on Anil Kapoor when he is the one who is English crazy?

Akshay Kumar is the saving grace of the film. But he is in his stereotyped self. You won't mind missing this film.@@@0 +This has got to be a unique twists of two genres of ever seen. The giant monster movie genre with the living mummy movie genre. This unique blend makes for a unique and compelling story. The casts is outstanding, including TOM BOSLEY who as far as I know never has been in a horror movie before, ever. The effects are impressive and the idea of a giant mummy filled with smaller mummies is a cool one. My one complaint, I just wish we saw more of the giant mummy, but other then that I think they did a great job. The dialog, the characters and the story was perfect. The acting was wonderful. This has got to be the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. You heard me, the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. I give THE FALLEN ONES 9 OUT OF 10.@@@1 +If this is a 2008 product from one of the biggest production houses of Indian Film Industry (Yash Raj) then I am afraid it is a very long ahead for us to reach the right standards.

If you can go wrong to this length with such an enormous star cast of Anil, Akshay, Saif and Kareena, then movie making is still to be studied much harder by everyone associated with this film. The film lacks in almost all departments except cinematography and Akshay Kumar. He has a few good dialogues to render but that alone cannot make you enjoy a flick with huge expectations.

The first scene of a car going down into a river from the mountain has very cheap graphics like that of a cartoon film. That itself was a clear indicator of the director's vision. Every actor who otherwise is an asset to a movie is simply wasted. Anil Kapoor's gimmick of attempting good English falls flat most of the times. And Saif will surely hit himself thinking why he signed this movie.

In short IT'S THE BIGGEST WASTE OF RESOURSES AFTER "JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM". I would say that even "Aaja Nachle" was a better enjoyable movie than this.

One cannot understand how and why this kind of script was written and approved. The most unwanted was the flashback sequence of Akshay's love story. After the faulty script the weakest point of the movie is its music. Vishal Shekhar have given just some filler tunes to each song. The songs start off very well and suddenly the tunes drop drastically. Only one song "Falak Tak Chal" is somehow good of all in the lot. An opportunity wasted by Vishal Shekhar.

Regarding the continuity intelligence of the makers just sample this : Akshay and Saif are on the road in the hilly area of a foreign Location (probably Ladakh). In the next scene they are searching for Kareena in Haridwar and then back in the hills with Kareena in the dicky of their car. I am still thinking who wrote this.

If you manage to sit till the last then the climax is too long with silly and unnecessary stunts. You can see all the heroes walking through the storm of bullets not hurt as if they are GOD. Are we still seeing a 2008 movie with all these technical heights achieved? So no more words on this pathetic and downgrade movie but a sincere request to senior actors from their fan.

Dear Anil Kapoor & Akshay Kumar, If possible please ask for a preview of your movies after their first copy is out. As artists of such stature, you have certain responsibilities towards your fans and viewers. People still clap for you as you enter the screen in your first scenes respectively. I think this kind of movie should not see the daylight as it hampers the reputation of all associated with the movie, the actors and the production house both.@@@0 +Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost.@@@1 +I had some expectation for the movie, since it had a nice star cast and it is the return of the duo of Akshay and Saif. Well, I was hesitant to watch the movie because this was done by the same man who wrote the story for Dhoom franchise because I hated Dhoom 2; but if Dhoom 2 is compared to Tashan, I would say Dhoom 2 is very realistic.

When I saw the credits at the beginning, I felt nice because it was put up in a nice way. Well, the very first scene itself pis*ed me off. Then, the major drawback of the movie is the action sequences. Me and my friends were laughing our guts off watching this crappy fights. It was like Akshay against some 30 thugs and all and the thugs even got machine guns! Phew...you got to see this to understand how bad the action sequences are.

The other thing about the movie is the far too predictable story. It reminded me of some of the early 80's movies.

Well, the only thing the movie is worth is of sexy Kareena, who looked really hot in this one.And for that, I give a rating of 2 out of 10.

Guys, please..please...don't see this one thinking that it is a real gangster movie. Well, you can watch this to have some laughs at the terrible fight scenes.

Thats all.@@@0 +Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.@@@1 +The action in this movie beats Sunny bhai in Gadar. Akshay Kumar possess the superpowers of Leonidus in 300, Neo in Matrix along with Spiderman and Superman. It is hilarious. Except for the typical Akshay Kumar and Anil Kapoor comedy I cannot see anything positive in this film. The story looks like the writer told his 10yr old son to write. The movie is so unreal that Anil Kapoors long range shooting with a shotgun is the least most mistake by the director. Except for the directors Tashan to make this movie there is no other Tashan. I regret wasting my money on this movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. 1/10 is the least I can give on IMDb or I would give it a zero.@@@0 +When I saw this movie I was stunned by what a great movie it was. This is the only movie I think I would ever give a 10 star rating. I am sure this movie will always be in my top 5.

The acting is superb. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett are at their best. I don't think anyone could have a better job than Kate.

If it is a rainy day and you can't decide what to rent, well, this is the one. You will love all the acting, special effects, and much much more.

If you have not seen this movie go rent or buy it now!!! You won't regret it.

@@@1 +I had a lot of expectations from this movie and more so since it was a Yashraj Film.

Jimmy operates a call centre and one day he is invited by Pooja Singh to teach her boss, Lakhan Singh, English. The two fall in love and decide to run away but Pooja tells Jimmy that she can't do this as she owes a debt to Lakhan Singh, who is also known as Bhaiyyaji. But they decide and steal money from him and its only then that Jimmy finds out that Bhaiyyaji / Lakhan Singh is a Don. In the meantime, Bhaiyyaji hires a man, Bachchan Pandey, to track down Jimmy and Pooja.

Starring Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Anil Kapoor and Akshaye Kumar, the movie is directed by first time director Viay Krishna Acharya and is produced by both Aditya Chopra and Yash Chopra.

"Tashan" has to be one of the worse films that I have ever watched. Yes! The scenery is good and Kareena Kapoor (and her much publicised weight loss) looks good. But plot is extremely thin on story and at times makes no sense from one scene to the other - hence why I have said at the beginning that I had expected more from this film as it was a Yashraj Production. With reference to songs, unfortunately, there is not one song that I can remember now.

There are moments where one can laugh and that is mainly thanks to Akshaye Kumar and Saif could have definitely done better while Kareena Kapoor played her part well. But this cannot be said for Anil Kapoor - it did not suit him at all as a villain. Lastly,never mind Aditya Chopra, who in the past has produced and directed good films such as "Mohabbatein," what was Yash Chopra doing by producing such a trash movie?

Conclusion: Bad movie, not worth wasting your time and that is my first and last impression.@@@0 +Why do people bitch about this movie and not about awful movies like The Godfather. Titanic is the greatest movie of the 21st Century.With great acting,directing,effects,music and generally everything. This movie is always dumped by all because one day some one said they didn't like it any more so most of the world decided to agree. There is nothing wrong with this movie. All I can say is that this movie, not only being the most heavily Oscar Awarded movie of all time, the most money ever made ever and sadly one of the most underrated movies I've ever seen. Apart from that it is truly the best movie of all time. The only movies that come close to being like all the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything by the masters Hitchcock or Spielberg or Tim Burton. These are all good movies and directors but none match up to James Cameron's Masterpiece TITANIC.@@@1 +I had no idea what the film is about before I saw it because Tashan only had teaser trailers while it was being promoted. So I asked my friends if they knew anything about it and they said that "It is the directorial debut of Vijay Krishna Acharya who wrote the screenplays for Dhoom 1 & 2 and Saif Ali Khan's son Ibrahim makes his debut in the film by playing him as a child in his flashback".

After watching it, I understood that why their wasn't a proper trailer because there wasn't anything in the film to show. The story was extremely dum and even a 10 year old child can come up with a better story-line. There was hardly any action and the camera shook at every possible angle there is and it's difficult to figure out that who is killing who. Also the action was daft & unrealistic e.g. 1 man with a handgun managed to kill about 100 men with machine guns.

While I was watching Tashan it reminded me of 3 films:

Sin City: During the opening credits.

Koyla: Anil Kapoor's terrible English like Amrish Puri in Koyla.

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: The outrageously ridiculous jokes that are not even a jot funny.

I also heard the budget is 40 crores which is the same amount as Dhoom 2 and I don't know where all the money went to. Anyway if you did not like Dhoom 2 then there is absolutely no chance that you will like Tashan. Race was hot on heels and that is a million times better.

The only 2 good songs are Dil Haara & Challiya and both songs are shot in Greece at good locations but what is the use of it in a rubbish film? Even Anil Kapoor's terrible English couldn't save this discomfiture.@@@0 +Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.

True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.

Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks!@@@1 +I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead.@@@0 +What's inexplicable? Firstly, the hatred towards this movie. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but gimme a break, it got 11 oscars for a reason, it made EIGHTEEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for a reason. It's a damn good movie. Which brings to the other inexplicable aspect of it. I have no idea whatsoever why this movie left such an impression on me when I saw it in theaters. I've rewatched it on TV and video, and it had none of the impact it had when I saw it on the big screen (twice, or maybe three times, actually). But that might be it, the appeal of it. It's a Movie, yes, capital M there, it's an Epic, it's a spectacle in the order of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur. Now, Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind seem kinda hokey to me, with the hammy acting and excessive melodrama. Not that Titanic has none of that. Well, the acting was actually very good. The melodrama was quite heavy-handed at times.

But the reason Titanic works is that it's such an emotional ride. I usually enjoy movies that stimulate the mind, or give me a visual thrill. This movie isn't exactly dumb, but it's not cerebral at all. The visual thrills are simply means to an end, to fuel the emotions of the audience. I didn't cry when Bambi's mom died, I don't react to tearjerkers. But this is a tearjerker to the power of ten million, an emotional rollercoaster that, if it were a regular one, would make Buzz Aldrin scream like a little girl. And I'm sure that if you see it on video and have decided that you hate it, and have a ready supply of cynicism, then you can thoroughly dislike this movie. But if you let that disbelief suspend just a bit, if you give this epic melodrama the benefit of the doubt, you'll enjoy it completely. And look at the top ten grossing films of all time. Is a single one of them bad? Is a single one of them worth a score of 1 out of 10? No, not even The Phantom Menace. And this movie made 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. It can't be bad. Not possible. 10/10.

p.s. how can anyone even consider comparing this to spiderman? spiderman was a fun movie, but it was a total 9/11 kneejerk that caused it to gross as much as it did. it simply wasn't anything all that special. no one will remember it in 50 years. but i'm pretty sure Titanic will be remembered.@@@1 +Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.

This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.

In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.

The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.

Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.

Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.

Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies.@@@0 +Previously, I wrote that I loved "Titanic", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.

Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0.

In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in "Titanic". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for "Titanic", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)

Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of "Titanic" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical "bombs" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). "Heaven's Gate" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). "Big Top Pee-wee" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). "Cat People" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). "Blind Date" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH "TITANIC"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN "TITANIC", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, "Titanic" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.

Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?

@@@1 +I just saw the movie in theater. The movie has very few good points to talk about. Kareena's beauty and a couple of songs may be. Thats it. The movie is a complete disappointment in all areas. Anyone associated with the movie will be disappointed, even Mumbai Indians too (just now Chennai has made it to semi-final).

But the worst I feel about the movie is the action scenes. Now days Bollywood is trying to copy action scenes from Hollywood. But they forget that Hollywood directors takes a lot effect to make it look like real. But unfortunately Bollywood directors do not have that much of time. They spend their time on songs and publicity of the movie. Now such too stupid action scenes may work in South as the audience just pay to watch their favorite actor killing bunch of people. But in Bollywood this is certainly not going to work. All the action scenes I wish I could have forwarded. At the end even some Chinese people appear from nowhere to beat Akshay Kumar. This is height of stupidity. Audience is not paying to watch such stupidity. I think Bollywood now should forget about the action movies. They cant make it. The last good action I have seen was from "Ghatak" and "Khiladiyon ka Khialdi". The current scene in Bollywood is really sad for action movie fans like me. Does these people see their movie after completion? Can't they figure out that the slow motion action (which is done using ropes) is too unrealistic and childish? Better not to have action scenes if you cant handle it. I just want to go back to Amitabh's era where movie like Zanjeer and Deewar were having thrilling action scenes. The sound effect was not very effective in those days, but visually it is much better than current era scenes.

This movie now should open the eyes of the Bollywood movie directors. Please don't make any more action movies, until you acquire the art of making it realistic.@@@0 +I loved this movie since I was 7 and I saw it on the opening day. It was so touching and beautiful. I strongly recommend seeing for all. It's a movie to watch with your family by far.

My MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, prolonged scenes of disastor, nudity/sexuality and some language.@@@1 +The storyline was okay. Akshay Kumar was good as always and that was the only good thing about the movie. Kareena Kapoor looked bad. There was so hue and cry over her size zero but she did not looked good leaner. I don't know why the hell did Anil Kapoor accepted such a bad role. There was nothing much to do for him in the movie. Just because it is a Yashraj film does not means that an actor should accept the role however bad it is. Said Ali khan was alright. I think that it is high time that Indian directors and producers start thinking of Indian customers as intelligent lot. What are we ? fools!!!! What do they think, they will show 2 men taking on a SWAT squad to teeters and we will believe them. Is the Indian police so stupid that they are trying to nab some criminals.... they take an entire squad of 100 + policemen and no one was there to surround the palace. The action was crap and I have never seen such bad action. Akshay Kumar was between a circle of 30-40 policemen all shooting at him..... and he shooting back at them. None of the policemen's bullet touched him but he killed all the policemen. Crap. CRAP.

I think the fight director who thought of this scene should take retirement.

I strongly recommend NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE.@@@0 +The movie Titanic makes it much more then just a "night to remember." It re writes a tragic history event that will always be talked about and will never been forgotten. Why so criticised? I have no idea. Could/will they ever make a movie like Titanic that is so moving and touching every time you watch it. Could they ever replace such an epic masterpiece. It will be almost impossible.

The director no doubt had the major impact on the film. A simple disaster film (boring to watch) converted to an unbelievable romance. Yes I'm not the Romance type either, but that should not bother you, because you will never see a romance like this. Guaranteed! Everything to the amazing effects, to the music, to the sublime acting.

The movie creates an amazing visual and a wonderful feeling. Everything looks very real and live. The legend herself "TITANIC" is shown brilliantly in all classes, too looks, too accommodation. The acting was the real effect. Dicaprio and Winslet are simply the best at playing there roles. No one could have done better. They are partly the reason why the film is so great.

I guess it's not too much to talk about. The plot is simple, The acting is brilliant, based on a true story, Probably more then half of the consumers that watch the film will share tears, thanks to un imaginable ending which can never be forgotten. Well if you haven't seen this film your missing out on something Hesterical, and a film to idolise for Hollywood. Could it get better? No. Not at all. The most moving film of all time, don't listen to people, see for yourself then you will understand. A landmark. (don't be surprised if you cry too)@@@1 +I was very displeased with this move. Everything was terrible from the start. The comedy was unhumorous, the action overdone, the songs unmelodious. Even the storyline was weightless. From a writer who has written successful scripts like Guru and Dhoom, I had high expectations. The actors worked way too hard and did not help the film at all. Of course, Kareena rocked the screen in a bikini but for two seconds. I think Hindi stunt directors should research how action movies are done. They tend to exaggerate way too much. In Chinese films, this style works because that is their signature piece. But, Hindi cinema's signature are the songs. A good action movie should last no more than two hours and cannot look unrealistic. But, in the future, I'm sure these action movies will get much sharper. Also to be noted: Comedy and action films do not mix unless done properly. Good Luck next time.@@@0 +I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox.@@@1 +If there is one film which is the worst of this year- it's TASHAN The first promo gave an indication that the film will be a boring Dhoom 2 style film, and well i knew first only it would be a bad film whatever it maybe Because of it being a Yashraj film Or maybe seeing the cheesy promo But this film gave me a shock, it was even worst then Dhoom 2 and what i expected First Saif's introduction which is boring Then Saif- Kareena meet, Kareena is so artificial and then Anil Kapoor oh god, what he is doing in such a weird film? What kinda role it is? What acting is he doing? His first scene is alright but then his act gets repetitive and he overacts Then came Akshay who provided some nice scenes, but then the film became more boring and with all the outdated stuff Childhood romance, overdose of childish Rajnikant style action scenes and all boring scenes The ending is another joke

Vijay Krishna Acharya would have got 3 films more to direct, if this film had worked, thats the strategy of yashraj, only money nothing else So Vijay is another addition to their list of crap filmmakers Music( Vishal Shekhar) is ordinary

Performances Akshay Kumar comes in the film as a whiff of fresh air, he actually provides some engaging moments Saif Ali Khan is irritating, Kareena is equally bad Anil Kapoor hams outrageously and spoils the show even more Rest are okay@@@0 +I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.

So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome@@@1 +Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.

background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.

Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.

After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure.

Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this.@@@0 +Titanic is a long but well made tragic adventure love story that takes place during the ill-fated voyage on the unsinkable ship. Writer/Director James Cameron has done a great job of making this movie about a fictional love story between two very different people and combining that with the real event of the Titanic that sunk after hitting an iceberg on April 15, 1912 claiming thousands of lives who perished in the icy freeing waters of the North Atlantic. The two leads in the film are great in their roles including Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. They make for a good on-screen couple. DiCpario and Winslet also had genuine chemistry together which made the romance that eventually blossoms between them that much more believable. They both showed real talent when this one came out and both of them have continued to show just that in their most recently films as well. The rest of the supporting cast including Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher, Jonathan Hyde, and Bill Paxton in a small role are equally impressive as their characters who help bring them to life in this film. The love story, the action, suspense, and the special effects are magnificent done especially for that time. The horror of the situation the characters were in felt so real because it really happened making you want most of them to survive this life and death situation. The pacing was a little slow at times and it was a little long but the rest of the movie made up for it's few flaws. Titanic makes for a great date movie which is sure to make some girls cry almost every time they watch it. The fact that this really happened definitely added to the movie making you feel sorry for all the lives lost when the Titanic sunk into the Atlantic after hitting an iceberg. Overall Titanic is a tragic heartbreaking story about two people who fall in love while on the ill-fated ship thats brought to life by the exceptional performances from the cast especially DiCaprio and Winslet who definitely make this movie worth the time to watch.@@@1 +Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.

Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!

Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'

Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!

Go away man, i need to puke!@@@0 +The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.

Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.

The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!!@@@1 +I had never thought the standard of Yashraj films would ever degrade to such an extent! The film has a nonsense storyline which catches no interest.

Saif has over acted. Kareena has improved her figure, but is not a good actress anyway. Akshay is good. Anil is also good. May I say the role wasn't good..

Great deal of cheapness is filled in. Wondered if that was supposed to be the "comedy part" of the movie. Just because last few movies were flops does that mean Yashraj films should make this kind of rubbish? It has a history of so many good films.

Overall, I was totally disappointed with the movie.@@@0 +Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.

When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.

And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.

Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.

I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.

I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.

I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events.@@@1 +The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.@@@0 +Titanic is a classic. I was really surprised that this movie didn't have a solid ten, overall in the IMDb user rankings. Maybe, it's just cool to not give Titanic credit nowadays, but when it was first made it was really something. When the movie came out people flocked to the theaters. When it came out on video my sister and i would watch it twice a day for a month. It was safe to say we were obsessed and for good reason. Some of the disaster scenes were hard to forgot, like the frozen baby, or the guy who committed suicide after killing someone in the unruly crowd. Many people died on that ship, and to convey that on film with the immediacy and emotion it needed is a hard challenge that James Cameron stepped up to. And let's not forget the amazing romance between Jack and Rose. Whether or not their relationship was a figment of someone's imagination it was lovely. They barely knew each other, but they would die for each other. They trusted each other. They sure as hell are giving Romeo and Juliet a run for their money. "I'll never let go, Jack." Titanic is a great film down to it's very core. It is a powerful story told through brilliant acting, excellent cinematography, beautiful music, and a crew full of hard and dedicated workers. It really blows my mind when someone says they hate this movie.@@@1 +This movie is horrible. THe acting is a waste basket. No crying, no action, hopeless songs. Though the scenery is great. I have always wanted to go to Greece.

Anyway, as for Saif, you'd expect a great performance, but even he let down the people.

Akshay Kumar, recognized as the pimp of Bollywood and the voice of Singhs. He was sensational in this movie. For only this performance, Filmfare should introduce another award. The toiletries award for the worst performance. By the way the trophy should be a toilet seat.

Kareena Kapoor. She first of all is not comparable to her sister Karisma. In acting, in looks, or in body. She now wants to prove to herself that she surpasses her. She comes into this movie wearing bikini's and tank tops and short shorts. I really wonder why Saif Ali Khan is letting his wife-to-be dress like that. But, she must've impressed some people dressing like that. And if you ask how, then consider every man is having an erection watching this movie. They are dreaming of having Kareena Kapoor in bed naked with a condom. Including me. Personally I think that she dressed like a whore, but I really liked it.

I am forced to give it a 1/10, but I'd really give this movie a 0/10. An unachieved film.@@@0 +Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10@@@1 +OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.

Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.

However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.

I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.

Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.@@@0 +For me personally this film goes down in my top four of all time. No exceptions. James Cameron has proved himself time and time again that he is a master storyteller. Through films such as Aliens, The Abyss and both Terminators it is clear that he was a brilliant and confidant director as far as action and science-fiction goes. He sees a story and adds a strange quality to the film. But Titanic is so much different to his other strokes of brilliance. The film is exceptionally moving and allows room for surprises, plot development and interesting character developments in a story that everyone knows. The story of the famed voyager sinking on her maiden voyage is legend so the challenge was for Cameron to make a truthful, interesting and entertaining film about it. The acting is wonderful as Leonardo DiCaprio who plays Jack and Kate Winslet who plays Rose became superstars overnight with the release of this film and in most films I get annoyed when the supporting characters aren't given a lot to do but in this film it is more purposeful because as an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) tells her story it is quickly apparent that it is Rose's and Jack's story alone, no one else. Emotionally it is entirely satisfying and can leave no dry eye in a theater or home. The music has become iconic and legendary. It is composer James Horner's finest soundtrack ever and evokes so much from the film and the audience. The song after so long has become annoying but I still appreciate it for the phenomenon it is and this film is. Only one problem, the usual James Cameron problem, is the dialogue which is memorable but in a bad way as in how cheesy it is at points but all that aside. James Cameron has delivered a masterpiece and a romantic epic that sweeps you away on a journey of a lifetime. My heart won't go on from this one.@@@1 +...for this movie defines a new low in Bollywood and has set the standard against which all c**p must now be compared.

First off, the beginning did have elements of style....and if handled well, could have become a cult classic, a-la pulp fiction or a Desi desperado...but the plot (was there one?) begins to meander and at one point completely loses it.

Throw in a deranged don with an obsession for English, a call center smart Alec, a femme fa tale who can don a bikini and a Saree with the same aplomb, a levitating, gravity defying hit-man and a cop with a hundred (or was it a thousand) black cat commandos on their trail....good ingredients in competent hands. But this is where I would like to ask the director: Sir, what were you smoking?

Im sure this movie would be remembered in the annals of Bollywood film making - for what must never be done - insult the intelligence of the most brain dead of movie goers.

Possibly the only redeeming feature in this Desi matrix plus desperado plus grindhouse caper is the music...watch the videos...hear the airplay and you wont be disappointed. Vishal- Shekhar come up with some eminently hummable tunes.

How I wish the director had spent the money in creating some more eye candy....

As I sign off, I want to really, badly know how does Akshay's bullet wound vanish in a microsecond...what were you editors doing? Tashan, maybe...@@@0 +Back in 1997, do I remember that year: Clinton bans cloning research, the unfortunate death of Princess Diana, the Marlins won the world series and a woman gave birth to septuplets. This was also the big year in the release of Titanic, one of the biggest films of all time: a tale about the ship of dreams, about a boy and a girl who fall in love but are torn apart by their social class and at the height of their emotional commitment the ship meets with disaster. I don't think anybody could have expected Titanic to be as HUGE as it was, the movie was bigger than life and had millions of fans, 85% of them being teenage girls, I was 12 years old at the time, and of course saw the movie multiple times. It was the film that made me believe that the love that Jack and Rose shared was so real and beautiful. At the time I felt that Titanic could do no wrong, of course I grew up and didn't watch the film since I was 14, a couple years ago I saw the film on DVD for 5.99 and figured that it was a good price and to see what I thought about the movie now. Was it worth the hype? Was it really the best movie of all time? Was that Leonardo's real nose? OK, I know that's silly to say, but I did re-watch the film. Being completely honest here, Titanic is a great movie, best movie of all time, no, just depends on your idea of a good movie, but Titanic delivered in romance, humor, disaster, emotions and never let us go on this maiden voyage.

The film starts with Brock Lovett and his team exploring the wreck of the RMS Titanic, searching for a necklace set with a valuable blue diamond called the Heart of the Ocean. Unsuccessful, they instead discover a drawing of a young woman reclining nude, wearing the Heart of the Ocean, dated the day the Titanic sank. 101-year-old Rose Dawson Calvert learns of the drawing, and contacts Lovett to inform him she is the woman in the drawing. She and her granddaughter Elizabeth "Lizzy" Calvert visit Lovett and his skeptical team on his salvage ship. When asked if she knew the whereabouts of the necklace, Rose Calvert recalls her memories aboard the Titanic, revealing for the first time that she was Rose DeWitt Bukater. In 1912, the upper-class 17-year-old Rose boards the ship with her fiancé, Cal Hockley and her mother, Ruth DeWitt Bukater, both of whom stress the importance of Rose's engagement to Cal since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts: while they have the outward appearance of the upper-class, Rose and her mother are financially broke. Distraught and frustrated by her engagement to the controlling Cal and the pressure her mother is putting on her to go through with the marriage, Rose attempts suicide by jumping from the stern. Before she leaps, a drifter and artist named Jack Dawson intervenes. Jack and Rose strike up a tentative friendship as she thanks him for saving her life, and he shares stories of his adventures traveling and sketching; their bond deepens when they leave a stuffy first-class formal dinner of the rapport-building wealthy for a much livelier gathering of Irish dance, music and beer in third-class. But after Cal's servant informs him of Rose's whereabouts', Rose is forbidden from seeing Jack again. However, after witnessing a woman encouraging her seven-year-old daughter to behave like a "proper lady" at tea, Rose defies him and her mother, asking Jack to sketch her nude and wearing only the Heart of the Ocean, an engagement present from Cal. After a beautiful moment together in the very first backseat fun time, they go to the deck of the ship.

They then witness the ship's fatal collision with an iceberg. After overhearing the ship's lookouts discussing how serious the collision is, Rose tells Jack they should warn her mother and Cal. Meanwhile, Cal discovers Rose's nude drawing and her taunting note in his safe, so he frames Jack for stealing the Heart of the Ocean by having Lovejoy plant it in Jack's pocket. Upon learning Cal intends to leave Jack to die below deck, Rose runs away from him and her mother to rescue him. Jack and Rose return to the top deck. Cal and Jack, though enemies, both want Rose safe, so they persuade her to board a lifeboat. But after realizing that she cannot leave Jack, Rose jumps back on the ship and reunites with Jack in the ship's first class staircase. Jack and Rose return to the top deck, the lifeboats have gone, and the ship finally goes down into the freezing Atlantic taking Jack and Rose down.

So does Titanic live up to it's hype? I still say that this is a great movie to watch, I think that there were and still are quite a few haters that for some reason just want to trash the movie because it had won a ton of awards and everyone was in love with the movie. But it has great acting, amazing effects, a well-written story and still looks flawless. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this movie didn't get a lot of hype just because of Leo's baby face or Kate's amazing ability to cry on sight, this film is something special. It will always hold a special place in my heart, it has too seeing that I saw this film 8 times in the theater when it was released. But all that aside, I do recommend this movie, it's a great one and sure to go down in the classics one day.

10/10@@@1 +The sight of Kareena Kapoor in a two-piece bikini is about the only thing that wakes you up from your sleep while watching Tashan — the mega-disappointing, mind-numbing new film at the cinemas this weekend. Bad films are bad films and we see some every week, but Tashan is not just a bad film, it's a terrible film. Terrible because it takes its audience for granted, terrible also because the filmmakers expect to get away without a plot or any common sense only because they've got big movie stars onboard.Written and directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, Tashan is what you'd describe as a road movie, but one that's going in all the wrong directions. Saif Ali Khan stars as Jimmy Cliff, a call-centre executive who's hired to teach English to Bhaiyyaji - that's Anil Kapoor playing an ambitious UP gangster, desperate to go cool. Jimmy's got his eye on Pooja, the gangster's pretty young assistant (played by Kareena Kapoor), who uses Jimmy to swindle her boss of 25 crore rupees. Determined to recover his money and also to punish both Jimmy and Pooja, Bhaiyyaji recruits his most trusted henchman to do the job. So you have Akshay Kumar as Bachchan Pandey, the gangster's faithful aide from Kanpur, who tracks down the culprits and recovers the stolen money that's hidden across the length and breadth of the country.Much like those bad eighties potboilers, Tashan too is held together by a threadbare script centred on a vendetta plot. But the treatment's so over-the-top, so indulgent that it fails to establish any connect. Instead of a coherent screenplay or a traditional three-act structure, you get a handful of set pieces around which most of the scenes are loosely constructed. That garish item song in the desert, the bullet-dodging action scene at a Rajasthani fort, Kareeena's bikini moment, even that ridiculous climatic action scene complete with shaolin monks, a water scooter zipping through a dirty naala, and believe it or not, even a Dhanno-style horse-driven tonga. In all fairness, not all these set pieces are badly done - the item song in the desert is quite neat actually - but very little of it makes any sense in the larger picture, because you're just going from one piece to another without any help from the script really. Little do you expect in a seemingly fast-paced road movie, to find a sickeningly sentimental flashback track about childhood sweethearts.You see the problem with Tashan is nobody associated with this film knew what film they were making. What's more, I don't think they cared either - the film reeks of arrogance. Arbitrarily packing in elements of every genre without actually bothering to stop and see if the mix does work, Tashan is like an overcooked stew.There are films that kill you softly, and then there's Tashan, a film that kills you with excess. Packaged snazzily with glossy-finish camera-work, exotic locations and fancy costumes, every frame of the film probably cost lakhs to put together, but it still feels like a hollow piece in the end because the story doesn't hold. Borrowing narrative from Tarantino and style from Stephen Chow doesn't help either because they don't blend with the film's wafer-thin plot. One may have complained a little less if the characters were more engaging, but Anil Kapoor's grating Hinglish dialogue makes you want to slit your wrists, and Saif Ali Khan fumbles through the film foolishly, unable to find his feet. Kareena Kapoor, meanwhile, queen of over-the-top delivery, does a decent job. But of course, if Tashan is salvaged to some extent, it's thanks to Akshay Kumar's irresistible presence and his spontaneous approach to the character. You cringe when he's cupping his crotch repeatedly, and you scowl when he delivers those double-meaning dialogues, but not for a moment can you take your eyes off the screen when he's up there.Despite some good music from Vishal-Shekhar, the songs seem like they're only prolonging your misery. Well that's because Tashan is a test of your patience. In case you didn't know, Tashan means style. I'm sorry to say, this film has none.@@@0 +James Cameron's 'Titanic' is essentially a romantic adventure with visual grandeur and magnificence, a timeless tragic love story set against the background of this major historical event... It's an astonishing movie that exemplifies hope, love and humanity...

Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific on screen with big charisma... Conveying passion, trust, insouciance and ingenuity, he's a free-spirited wanderer with artistic pretensions, and a zest for life...

Kate Winslet is absolutely lovely as the confused upper-class teen engaged to a nasty rich guy who finds herself, one night, plunged to the depths of despair...

Billy Zane is an arrogant racist, abusive and ultra rich who would lie, cheat, steal, bribe with money or even use an innocent young child to escape defeat... He keeps a 56 carat blue diamond worn by Louis XVI...

Kathy Bates is the legendary unsinkable Molly Brown, the richest woman in Denver, who is a lot less uptight than the other rich folk on the ship...

Frances Fisheris is the impecunious cold snobbish mother who, deathly afraid of losing her social stature, forces her daughter to become engaged to marry a rich, supercilious snob...

Victor Garber is the master shipbuilder, the real-life character who attempts to fix time, to measure it, in a sense, to make it into history...

Jonathan Hyde is the White Star Chairman who wants the Titanic to break the Trans-Atlantic speed record, in spite of warnings that icebergs may have floated into the hazardous northern crossing...

Bill Paxton is the opportunistic undersea explorer in search for a very rare diamond called the "Heart of the Ocean."

Gloria Stuart is the 101-year old woman who reveals a never-before told love story... The nightmare, the horror and the shock are imprinted upon her deeply lined face...

'Titanic' is loaded with luminous photography and sweeping visuals as the footage of the shipwrecked Ocean liner lying motionless on the ocean floor; the incredible transformation of the bow of the sunken 'Titanic' that takes the viewer back to 1912, revealing the meticulously re-created interiors; the first sight of the Titanic steamed steadily toward her date with destiny; the Titanic, leaving the Southampton dock, and some dolphins appear jumping, racing along in front of the luxurious ship; DeCaprio and Winslet flying at the ship's front rail in a gorgeous magic moment; the intertwining of past and present as Jack was drawing Rose on his paper, the camera zooms closely on young Rose's eye, only to transform its shape into Gloria Stuart's aged eye...

Chilling scenes: Titanic's inevitable collision with destiny; James Cameron—in one of the most terrifying sequences ever put on film— takes us down with the Titanic, finally leaving us floundering in the icy water, screaming for help that never comes...

Winner of 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, James Cameron's "Titanic" is a gigantic epic where you don't just watch the film, you experience it! The visual effects are amazing, like no other film's... The decor is overwhelming... James Horner's music intensifies the emotions... The whole movie is hunting and involving, filled with a wide range of deep feelings...

It's truly a moving tribute to those who lost their lives on that unfortunate ship...@@@1 +Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)

Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..

Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).

And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..@@@0 +This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages.@@@1 +I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but "hinglish" is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much.

*sigh*

All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)

Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - "Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health" ?

Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - "Mera Dil Kho Gaya" becomes - "My heart is in a void" , "Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya" turns into "Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond" ..priceless.

In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!

*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.@@@0 +Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.

The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.

Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.

A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.

Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.

Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.

@@@1 +This is the biggest Flop of 2008. I don know what Director has is his mind of creating such a big disaster. The songs have been added without situations, the story have been stretched to fill the 3 hrs gap and most disgusting are the action stunts performed by the actors it's like everyone are having superpowers they can run in between the bullets are fire and nothing happens to them and one person fighting with 100 people. Only the best performance was by Anil Kapoor man he is all time at his best playing the role of villain with a comic act speaking Hinglish... Akki is also done a good job.... But the movieee just forget it.@@@0 +I find it so amazing that even after all these years, we are STILL talking about this movie! Obviously this movie wasn't THAT bad or else people wouldn't even BOTHER to talk about it. I personally enjoyed this film immensly, and still do! I guess this film isn't for everyone, but it certainly did touch the hearts of many.

As for those that think that this film is "overrated" or "over-hyped"...well, we only have the movie-going public to thank for that! lol* You see, it's not CRITICS/article writers that make a film "HUGE" or a "HIT" with the general movie-going public. PEOPLE make the film a huge success. With Titanic, everyone was in awe. Let's face it, a film like this had never been made before. At least not with the type of special effects needed to really capture the essence of the ship actually sinking. This film is so accurate that even James Cameron timed the actual sinking of the ship in the film with the REAL sinking that fateful day in April 1912. Even the silverware for goodness sakes matched!

Give this movie a break you guys! The critics thought this movie would sink BIG time! When this movie actually came out and people started hearing by WORD OF MOUTH (which is the BEST form of advertisement mind you) that this was a good/decent/movie worth seeing, then everyone started flocking to the theaters in droves to see this movie...not once, not twice, but maybe 3 times and more! So, I really wouldn't say that this movie was "overhyped"...at least not like the buildup for the MATRIX reloaded or the HULK is being "overhyped". ha! Critics didn't even think that Titanic would make enough money to cover Cameron's gigantic film budget that it took to make this mammoth of a film. However, the films money took care of that 200 million budget and MUCH more!

Personally, I LOVE this film. However, this film might not be for everyone. DOn't say that this film sucks just because of romance though! THat is the most sexist thing I've ever heard! Disliking a movie just because it has romance in it! The story was sweet. The dialogue could have been better, but let's face it...the REAL star of the movie wasn't Leo or Kate...it was that GIGANTIC Ship! I think all of the actors including DiCaprio and Winslet did a fine job. It's not thier best work (I've seen much BETTER work from both of them) but it wasn't the WORST I've seen on screen before. Give them a break!

@@@1 +All the world said that the film Tashan would be a good movie with great pleasure, but this is not the case. Vijay Krishna Acharya made a serious mistake to take as an actress Kareena Kapoor. She was unbearable throughout the film. Her tom-boy look does not really goes well. Even the film the story of the film is not making sense at all. Everyone said that the Quetin Taratino of India is Vijay but its not at all Quetin. The talent Anil Kapoor was involved in this stupid movie. Anil is an actor of large caliber and this film is not. Akshay Kumar has also been a victim of this film as all is Saif. The Style and the Phoormola is not really good in this film i was disappointed@@@0 +I avoided watching this film for the longest time. Long before it was even released I had dismissed it as an over-hyped, over-blown, overly romanticized piece of Hollywood schmaltz, and I wanted nothing to do with it. I never watched it in the theatre. I shook my head in disbelief at the 11 Academy Awards - even though I had never seen it. Then I was asked to be a judge at a high school public speaking contest. One of the girls spoke about this movie. "It was so great," she said. "You really felt like you were on the ship." "Nonsense," I thought. I shared my feelings with my fellow judges. One looked at me and said, "you might be right, but if she liked the movie that much maybe she'll want to learn more about the real Titanic. The movie must have done something right to get her so interested." "Well, maybe," thought I. Then it finally appeared on Pay TV. "OK," I thought, "I'll give it a look see." I didn't want to like it - and I didn't. I loved it! What a great movie.

Where to start? First - the directing. My high school public speaking contestant was right. James Cameron does a superb job of creating an almost "you are there" type of atmosphere. The gaiety of life aboard the most elegant ship in the world. The nonchalance as news of the iceberg first spreads; then the rising sense of panic. You don't just watch it; you really do feel it. Then - the performances. The lead performances from Kate Winslet (as Rose) and Leonardo DiCaprio (as Jack) are excellent - Winslet's being the superior, I thought, but both were good. They had their rich girl/poor boy characters down to a perfect "t" I thought. In my opinion, though, stealing the show was Frances Fisher as Rose's mother. She was perfect as the snobby aristocrat, and you could feel the fear and loathing she felt every time she looked at Jack. Then - the details. I'm no expert on the sinking of the Titanic, but I have a reasonable general knowledge, and this film does a super job of recreating the historical details accurately and then weaving them seamlessly around the fictional romance. Very impressive, indeed. Then - the song. Who can watch this movie and not be taken with Celine Dion's performance of "My Heart Goes On."

Problems. Well, the romance was perhaps too contrived, in the sense that I just don't accept that Jack could have moved so effortlessly from steerage to first class. (I know he was invited the first time; but he seems to keep getting into first class without being stopped until he's been there for a while.) The realities of the separation of the social classes were much more realistically portrayed, I thought, when the steerage passengers were going to be left locked down there after the ship hit the iceberg while the first class folks got to enjoy half empty lifeboats.

A minor quibble, though. This is truly an excellent movie. My only regret is not seeing it in the theatre, where I think it would have been so much more impressive.

9/10@@@1 +I wasn't terribly impressed with Dante's 1st season offering in "Homecoming", it wasn't much of a horror story, but rather a smart political statement with the undead. Screwfly situation is the story of a virus unleashed on the world that causes men's sexual drive to replaced with murderous tendencies toward women. The episode starts out all right with a short film explaining the way the screw fly was killed of by scientists. Then there is short scene where a man is arrested when females bodies are discovered in his home. I assume this is supposed to show the beginning of the outbreak, but is unclear because this is never revisited. The episode go ons for a while introducing characters blah blah blah.It seems cool and mysterious but the episode stars to get worse and worse as it lurches forward until its sad and unsatisfying end. The worst episode. Well, except for chocolate.@@@0 +To all the miserable people who have done everything from complain about the dialogue, the budget, the this and the that....who wants to hear it? IF you missed the point of this beyond-beautiful movie, that's your loss. The rest of us who deeply love this movie do not care what you think. I am a thirthysomething guy who has seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one stands in its own entity, in my book. It was not supposed to be a documentary, or a completely factual account of what happened that night. It is the most amazing love story ever attempted. I know that it is the cynical 90's and the millennium has everyone in a tizzy, but come on. Someone on this comments board complained that it made too much money! How lame is that? It made bundles of money in every civilized country on the planet, and is the top grossing film in the planet. I will gladly side with the majority this time around. Okay, cynics, time to crawl back under your rock, I am done.@@@1 +I've now written reviews for several of the MoH episodes, and this is among the worst. An interesting premise at the beginning is completely abandoned by the time the credits roll. If watching people things they never would in real life amuses you ("let's check out the basement!"), then this is your show. Except, it's not amusing or entertaining - it's just annoying.

The extent of the virus is never, ever showed. I can very much overlook the fact that it affects men only, as the resulting situation is very, very frightening. But then things deteriorate as daughter lets OBVIOUSLY deranged dad into the home, and ultimately dies at his hands. The woman flees north, and runs into a few tens situations. Then, some sort of spirit or alien or something appears and saves her (things that make you go HUH?). Or something. Then, she is huddling for warmth. The end.

Awful. These directors are mailing this tripe in.@@@0 +Every once in a while the conversation will turn to "favorite movies." I'll mention Titanic, and at least a couple people will snicker. I pay them no mind because I know that five years ago, these same people were moved to tears by that very movie. And they're too embarrassed now to admit it.

I just rewatched Titanic for the first time in a long time. Expecting to simply enjoy the story again, I was surprised to find that the movie has lost none of its power over these five years. I cried again.... in all the same places. It brought me back to 1997 when I can remember how a movie that no one thought would break even became the most popular movie of all time. A movie that burst into the public consciousness like no other movie I can recall (yes, even more than Star Wars). And today, many people won't even admit they enjoyed it. Folks, let's get something straight -- you don't look cool when you badmouth this film. You look like an out of touch cynic.

No movie is perfect and this one has a few faults. Some of the dialogue falls flat, and some of the plot surrounding the two lovers comes together a little too neatly. However, none of this is so distracting that it ruins the film.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are wonderful. Leo is one of the fine actors of his generation. Wait 'til you see him in Gangs of New York before you call him nothing more than a pretty boy. Kate Winslet was so strong in this film. The movie really was hers, and she held it together beautifully.

James Cameron managed what many believed was impossible by recreating a completely believable Titanic. The sinking scenes were horrific, just as they were that night. How anyone can say the effects were bad is beyond me. I was utterly transfixed.

This film is one memorable scene after another. Titanic leaving port in Southampton. Rose and Jack at the bow, "flying". "Iceberg, right ahead!" The screws hanging unbelievably out of the ocean. The screams of the doomed after she went down. And that ending that brought even the burliest man in the theater to tears.

The music, which has also been a victim of the film's success, was a key ingredient. James Horner's score was simply perfect. And the love theme was beautiful and tragic. Too bad Celine Dion's pop song version had to destroy this great bit of music for so many.

I confess, I am a Titanic buff. As such, I relished the opportunity to see the ship as we never got to see it -- in all its beauty. Perhaps watching it sink affected me more than some because I've had such an interest in the ship all my life. However, I doubt many of those I saw crying were Titanic buffs. I applaud Cameron for bringing this story to the masses in a way that never demeaned the tragedy. The film was made with such humanity.

Another reviewer said it better than I ever could: Open up your hearts to Titanic, and you will not be disappointed.@@@1 +Masters of Horror: The Screwfly Solution starts as America is being infected by an airborne virus that affects the male population, when aroused men indiscriminately kill any woman in sight apparently in the name of God. Scientist Alan (Jasn Priestley) is brought in by the Government & knows more than most & senses the situation may have gone too far already so he tells his wife Anne (Kerry Norton) to take their teenage daughter Amy (Brenna O'Brien) & try to survive as the future of the human race may depend on them...

This Canadian American co-production was episode 7 from season 2 of the Masters of Horrror TV series, directed by Joe Dante I thought The Screwfly Solution was pretty bad. I personally think the script by Sam Hamm sucks, it takes itself far too seriously & I don't really understand why it's part of the Masters of Horror series, the horror that the filmmakers are going for in The Screwfly Solution is in the actual story itself & themes & ideas it brings up rather than on screen visual horror particularly the tenuous ecological message it sees intent on ramming down our throats whenever it's gets the chance during it's short 60 odd minute running time which I felt itself was a problem as the thing just finishes out of what could easily be interpreted as necessity rather than any meaningful attempt to wrap things up. I wasn't happy with the inconsistencies with the story either, if men only kill when sexually aroused why does the flight attendant casually break that woman's neck on the plane? Was he sexually aroused, I think not. Why does every bloke then think he's killing in the name of God? I just can't see every single bloke on Earth suddenly knowing the Bible & starting to believe in God, I just found the notion ridiculous & the show also states clearly that there's nothing religious about what's going on so what's the deal with everyone thinking they have a divine to murder any woman they see? Then there's the fact people get turned on by different things, what about gays for instance? Will they kill guys instead of women? I know there's a brief scene which makes a joke out of the gay issue but it's conveniently brushed to one side & then there's the thing which annoyed me the most. The fact that presumably every bloke on earth has turned psycho & killed all the women they go about their everyday business like nothing ever happened, it just felt so stupid, the plotting is rubbish & to round things off there's a ending which looks like it was taken from a rejected episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) with a bright neon alien.

Director Dante on this showing definitely doesn't qualify as a Master of Horror as far a I'm concerned, the story is badly paced, it's just so stupid considering it's played deadly straight & instead of trying to make a proper horror show he turns in more of a thriller with it's deadly virus on the loose situation & the subsequent mother & daughter on the run because of it, there's very little here in the way of what I would call effective horror & even less gore. There's a scene when a woman is stabbed with a broken bottle, a brief scene after when a guy stabs his own groin with said bottle & another woman is stabbed in the stomach but nothing else to write home about.

Technically like the other episodes it's really good & it doesn't have the look of a cheap TV series, the special effects are great as usual & it's well made. The acting is alright but no-one really stood out.

The Screwfly Solution is easily the worst Masters of Horror episode I've seen but bear in mind I haven't seen all of them... yet. As a stand alone piece of entertainment it did nothing for me & as a show made by a so-called Master of Horror it disappoints me even more.@@@0 +I am not a parent, neither am I a male. But I was able to identify with every character's heartaches and pains.

This is a movie teenagers should watch. Maybe that way they will start appreciating the value of family again. I'm sorry for those that don't understand the value of love, family and friendship.

It was very interesting to watch Patrick Duffy in a different role than that of Bobby Ewing. And it is great to see a 19 year old Ben Affleck giving his best in a moving and sincere performance. He showed at an early age, that he is capable of heartfelt drama. He should be offered more serious roles. Note Hollywoodland... his first serious role in years and he went out and won Best Actor at the Venice Festival in 2006.

This movie can be appreciated by people of all ages. Maybe shouldn't be watched by children under 10 because they might get scared that the same may happen to their families, but I recommend it to the entire family.

I bought this movie on DVD and have watched it with friends many times. Because it portrays the values that are important in life.@@@1 +I love the frequently misnomered "Masters of Horror" series. Horror fans live in a constant lack of nourishment. Projects like this (and the similar "Greenlight Project" with gave us "Feast" - like it or lump it) are breeding grounds for wonderful thought bubbles in the minds of directors with a horror bent to develop and bring to maturation food for we who love to dine on horror.

This one began with a kernel of really-kool-idea and ran ... right off the edge of "where in the world am I going with this?!!!".

I don't know how to spoil the spoiled but "SPOILER AHEAD" All of a sudden ... no, there was that light drifting across the night sky earlier ... we have long haired luminescent aliens (huh? ... HUH?) brain drilling males and ... yeah, I get it but ... well ... the worst curse of storytelling - a rousing and promising set up without a rewarding denouement.

Cue to storytellers ... your build up has to have a payoff that exceeds build up. Not the other way around. Storytelling math 101.

End of Spoilers - Big Oops!@@@0 +After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.

13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat clichéd story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.

The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening "thriller scene" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy "fix it in the mix" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong "made for television" feel, and a low budget one at that.

After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.

For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.

Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.

The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with "normal" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.

Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free.@@@1 +Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.

Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).

**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott@@@0 +Daniell Steel's Daddy, what a refreshing story. This movie glorified the importance of the family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children. How rare is that? In these times of "Heather has two Mommies" (or what ever, you fill in the blanks) it is easy to see why this theme is not for everyone. With the father's roles being prominent I was hoping this would be another Daniell Steel Saga. How disappointing to have it end. Every character was important and did a fabulous job carrying their role. I would have loved to see each character develop over the years. I loved this movie, it is one I will defiantly watch every time it's on. Good story, good acting, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, but no obtrusive sex or bad language. Yes it touched my heart. Warning, get the Kleenex ready. What I find sad is that this side of family life is rarely depicted today in our entertainment, be it Television or. Movie's. Daniell if your listening, You Go Girl, give us more.@@@1 +A huge disappointment from writer Hamm and director Dante. Their previous collaboration on the first season's "Homecoming" was twisted and darkly hilarious in all the right ways. This poor handling of an intriguing premise left me bewildered. The supposed "payoff" showing generic aliens extracting something from the brains of the infected psychopaths was completely unsatisfying and explained nothing. If the point of the story was an extraterrestrial "cleaning" of the planet of it's human infestation, why did they go about it in such a gratuitously sadistic and misogynistic fashion? Why not just unleash a completely lethal virus a la Stephen King's "The Stand" instead of having the male population butcher the females? I kept hoping the episode would improve as I kept watching but it just got more pretentious and preposterous. The religious subtext simply seemed forced but it was clear Sam Hamm must have thought it was profound by the weight he gave it. I like a lot of both Dante and Hamm's work but this was just unwatchable.@@@0 +Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families.@@@1 +I gave this 4 stars because it has a lot of interesting themes many here have already mentioned. From the domestic violence, to sexuality and many of the taboos therein. Outside of the gore I really would not call this horror so much as I would science fiction.

It's bleak, depressing and hopeless. While I don't mind a less than cheery ending, I'm really very tired of the "humans suck" cliché that's central to every movie. I know you can't get a liberal arts degree today without bowing to the alter of self-hatred as a member of the human race, but how's 'bout as a writer/director we pretend we are different than everyone else in the pack and notice that the ALIENS KILLING THE HUMAN RACE are evil! Right now, if you are reading this and believe that humanity deserves to die, just go out, find a lake and swim 'til your arms are tired. This way you won't be around to direct the next film or write the next book telling me I deserve to die for being alive. It's silly, not thoughtful, and boring.@@@0 +It's heart-warming to see a movie that doesn't bash males. In this one the wife/mother leaves her family to "get in touch" with herself - or pursue her libido. The father stays with and nurtures the kids, letting neither his work nor his love life interfere with his love of and responsibility to them.@@@1 +Warner Bros. made many potboilers in the 1930s and most of them are fast paced, economical and very entertaining. I really love how the studio exploited the less glamorous elements of our daily life. This is one of Warner's few hard-edged melodramas that simply doesn't work. Edward G. Robinson plays a ruthless editor of newspaper who resurrects the 20-year old story of a murderess with tragic consequences. Robinson gives a lively performance but he is surrounded by actors that don't cut the mustard. H.B. Warner, Aline MacMahon and Boris Karloff are good, but the bad acting of Frances Starr and Anthony Bushell in the second leads really hurts the movie. Starr is particularly bad during her big dramatic scene near the end of the movie. In addition, the moralistic tone of the film seems ridiculous in the context of pre-code Hollywood. LeRoy's direction is full of innovative visual touches but he cannot overcome the bad acting and the unintentionally funny situations. Sol Polito's camera work is strong. Somehow, this piece of dreck got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (in a year that gave us "M," "Dracula" and "Frankenstein").@@@0 +I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.

Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.

I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.

I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed.@@@1 +A little girl's dead body is found stripped of all possible means of identification. When it is discovered that one leg is longer than the other, it is assumed to be the body of a couple's missing daughter. After this trauma, the couple separates and the mother becomes addicted to tranquilizers and leads a miserable existence. All of this changes when one day, many years later, she receives a phone call from her daughter! With the help of an ex-cop and a reporter, she sets out on a journey to determine if her daughter is indeed alive. "Los Sin Nombre" is a mess plot-wise, moves at an achingly slow pace, and is completely unscary. The saving grace is Emma Vilarasau, who does an outstanding job as the desperate mother. The best part of the movie is the ending, but I'm not sure it is worth enduring the rest of the film. Beware of the English subtitles on the recent R1 release--they aren't very accurate.@@@0 +This is a film.., not porn.

This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!

If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!

It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.

Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.

Highly recommended for all film lovers.@@@1 +I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.

Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad.@@@0 +It was a serious attempt to show the developing sexuality of two schoolgirls and did not try to exploit its fact… Even by today's standards, the film is interesting and provocative…

Therese and Isabelle are both attending the same girl's school… Therese is energetic, intelligent, and becomes a mentor for the innocent, naive, sweet Isabelle… She guides her through a number of exotic experiences, including a trip through an exclusive brothel, into her first lesbian liaison, and indirectly into her first heterosexual experience…

The film does not exploit any sex, nor is there an abundance of nudity... The imagery is effective, but sometimes the camera lingers too long, and the story goes slowly…

The director, Radley Metzger, went on to make a number of explicit erotic films under the name of Henry Paris… He always has extremely detailed stories, good acting, and very high standards of cinematography...

Artistically, however, this is perhaps his most complete… His later attempts supplied for entertainment, whereas "Therese and Isabelle" was a study into the nature of youthful eroticism...@@@1 +I grew up on the 'Superman II' theatrical version ("S2T") and as a kid, I loved it more than Part I since not only did it contain more Superman and three Superman-type villains, it started off with a bang – the best Clark Kent to Superman transformations and rescue scenes. Kids no longer had to impatiently wait for Superman to appear on screen, as in part I. Now as an adult, I can see how the mighty had fallen with S2T (See: my review.) I've always heard of the back-story on how they prematurely and unjustifiably fired the original's director, Richard Donner from part II. (It must have been a rarity back then to film two separate movies simultaneously, now it's common: 'Back to the Future' and 'Matrix' 2 & 3 for example.) Unfortunately, after finally seeing the Richard Donner Cut (or, "S2RD") I still can't fully recommend it. Gone, was the great Superman change scene, the entire Paris rescue, as was the wonderful recap of part I in S2T's opening. In fact, they all but wrote the words: "Previously on Superman…" in S2RD. The special effects weren't great in either Part I or S2T , but S2RD, they were mostly downright laughable – such as Lois falling from the Daily Planet window. I will admit, some new scenes worked and some they took out were welcomed departures, such as any scene in the "honeymoon suite." Overall, if you grew up on S2T as I did, and loved it as a child – not nitpicking as I do as an adult, you should absolutely see S2RD as it's almost a brand new childhood experience with dozens of new scenes. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately, the worst change comes last: gone was also the weird amnesia kiss from S2T replaced with the exact same ending as 'I.' This is not only a lazy, unoriginal copout, it doesn't make sense on why Clark would go back to that diner, if those events never actually happened. And will he continue to "turn back time" for every confrontation?@@@0 +We watched this in my Women's Health Issues class to point out how women are treated inferior to men in many societies, and I absolutely loved this movie. I plan on trying to get a copy of it myself to watch. The story is very touching and I would recommend it to anyone. I am a fan of different cultures and this movie was just what I needed. This is a movie for the whole family despite its rating. This is a movie I will show to my children. The professor of our class meant for the movie to primarily be a too to educate about women, but this movie was more than that. It is one of those movies that will forever stick out in my mind and will be a favorite.@@@1 +So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod "defacing" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's "freedom of the press" line sounded silly compared to "..Care to step outside" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the "turn back the world to go back in time" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more.@@@0 +I was going to bed with my gf last night, and while she was brushing her teeth, I flipped channels until I came across this Chinese movie called the King of Masks. At first I thought it was going to be a Kung Fu movie, so I started watching it, and then it immediately captured me in, and I had to finish it.

The little girl in the movie was absolutely adorble. She was such a great actor for being so little. Maybe the fact it was in Chinese, so the English was dubbed made it harder for me to tell...but she really seemed to be in character perfectly. I felt so bad for the girl as she kept trying to please her "boss" but everything just turned out rotten. lol. Even when she brings him another grandson, just so he can pass on his art...it turns out that kid was kidnapped, so he gets arrested and has 5 days to live. lol...whatever she touches in an effort to be nice to her grandpa, just backfires.

In the end, he sees how much love is in her and teaches her the art of masks...which is just so heartwarming after all the mishaps in the movie.

Definitely a gem, and totally original.

Scott@@@1 +Superman II - The Richard Donner Cut should be a fan's dream come true. At long last, footage only seen in photos and scenes that only existed on the printed page would finally come to life. A director that was unable to complete his vision would have the opportunity to have his vision restored. It seems like a winning situation. And then you start watching this assembly of footage and you realize this "esoteric dream" is a very real nightmare of sloppiness and incompetence. While it's entirely possible that no movie could compete with the finished perfect version each of us has imagined over the years it really should have been a thrill to finally see this project. And it is only a very few times.

You know things are shaky when the very first bit of text on screen looks like home brew computer graphics. But then we start seeing new footage (alternates from Superman - The Movie for the trial) and that first bit of hesitation fades away. Hey, this is pretty neat! Things are alright for these few fleeting moments until we see footage from STM intermixed with new effects for this project, and it doesn't convince at all. And from this point on, it never ever lets up. It's probably not right to judge a movie because of bad visual effects, but when this is supposedly the direct follow up to a movie whose tag line was "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly" it's difficult to believe anything shown on screen here. The best effects in this are from the original productions.

Another issue with this re-cut. A lot of it just doesn't make sense. The only reason any of it really works is because we've all seen the theatrical version of Superman II, a movie that does make sense. Lester's Superman II fills in the holes of this assembly. Part of this could be because Donner didn't get to complete shooting, the other part could be because the makers of this project were intent on using as little Lester material as possible. What we end up with is an assembly of footage that makes Superman IV look airtight and coherent.

After viewing this, one gets the sense that while Lester was faithful and comfortable using Donner material, Michael Thau and his team were extremely disrespectful towards anything filmed by Lester. The best scenes in The Donner Cut are the ones lifted relatively intact from the released version of Superman II. That includes the moon sequence and the diner sequence, not ironically, both were filmed by Donner. But anything else from that movie filmed by Lester is re-edited in such a hasty fashion, that it now makes Lester seem like a ham fisted know nothing. While Lester honored the Donner material, Lester here is thrown under the bus.

So is there anything good in this release? Well Marlon Brando is in it, and that's neat to see. In fact watching any of the material shot by Donner is neat since it was all filmed at the same time as Superman - The Movie. But that only highlights the problems of this release. Any of the major scenes (really just Lois jumping and scenes with Marlon Brando) would have been better served as completed scenes in a deleted scenes section. Instead they are shoe horned into a nonsensical narrative with inferior performances (many alternate takes from familiar scenes are used) sloppy edits and bad decisions.

Watch the opening scene at the Daily Planet. Why are we looking at Jackie Cooper's back as he calls for Lois and Clark? At the end why do we have Lois walking into her dark apartment only to have that followed by Jackie Cooper walking into a dark bathroom turning the lights on? I was initially confused by this, because I expected to see Lois. The entire assembly is filled with questionable choices like this.

Battle scenes are a mess too, with no geography between cuts. It's just random action. Of course, the major action scenes were shot by Lester and his material is only used as a bridge to the next set of Donner outtakes or alternates. They should have used more of Lester's footage, but probably had too much pride to admit that.

The sloppiness extends to the military missile as well. As noted elsewhere, the missile shown in The Donner Cut bears the designation "XK 10" while we all know it's the "XK 101"! A blind man in STM knows that! The producers of this assembly, who tried so hard to honor the original film, dropped the ball less than five minutes in and that mistake is indicative of the quality of the entire production. For all the supposed care that was put into this, the final product has an air of shoddiness to it that is inescapable.

The entire affair would probably be easier to digest if Warner's didn't make this a separate release here in the states. As it is, we're expected to pay for what is essentially a bonus disc of deleted scenes with a "Play All" option. It's really only worth one viewing so that we can finally see the legendary cut scenes, but after that initial viewing, I expect that this will be an excellent magnet for dust and little else. I know after my experience of watching this, I had new respect for Lester's version. It's by no means perfect, but Lester realized the deficiencies that were in the script that stand out here in bold relief. He managed to make a movie that has entertained for many years and will continue to do so, while this new re-cut will most likely only be remembered as a footnote in that films history.@@@0 +I admit to being somewhat jaded about the movie genre of a young child softening the heart of his/her reluctant guardian. I've seen enough of them — Baby Boom, Kolya, About a Boy, Mostly Martha, and to some extent, Whale Rider — to expect to be bored by the formula. What held my attention in The King of Masks was the grimness of the setting: small-town China in the 1930's. Extreme poverty was the norm, and girl children were considered so worthless to poor parents that they killed them at birth or gave them to whomever would take them on the black market. When Wang discovers his purchased grandson, whom he's nicknamed "Doggie," is a granddaughter, he initially casts her out, even though she's showed great promise as street-performing heir. Even after he reluctantly takes her back, he's not too upset when she's kidnapped. The film is gritty then, showing the lengths to which a young, street-smart girl had to go to survive in that society.

The two lead performances are believable and beguiling in their societal context. In a Western society, one would expect at least a hint of resentment from Wang at not having achieved more material success. Wang so thoroughly accepts his station as a celebrated artist with low societal status, though, that I did, too. While Doggie exhibits a level of precociousness and cunning that would be suspect in a modern, suburban child, it's completely believable in the context of a kid constantly in survival mode in a society that treats poor girls like garbage. And after learning that her previous seven owners have physically and mentally abused her, her fierce attachment to Wang makes perfect sense.

The peek at small-town life in a foreign country, the naturalness of the two lead actors, the surprising plot twists, and of course, the heartwarming resolution all contribute to a very watchable film.@@@1 +I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.

I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community.@@@0 +This movie is the best film ever. I can't remember the last time a movie has drawn tears out of me. with a tear in my eye, I admire this movie. It has all the elements that a good movie must have: Excellent Dialogues, Music, Acting, Story/Plot. A story of friendship, courage, kindliness and loyalty between a Street performing who famous to The King of Masks and a little girl that sold as a boy in serf bazaar. Little girl liked to be his granddaughter and King of Masks liked a grandson. They were not conventional in real. Every scene they were together was priceless. The camera work is flawless and grips you. The acting is inspired. Xu Zhu was Excellent as The King of Masks. Renying Zhou "Doggie" looks pretty and played her character very well. Zhigang Zhao as Liang Sao Lang was great. He played his helpful and kindhearted character extremely well. If you have't this movie, try it once, Do watch it.@@@1 +I was expecting a documentary that focused on the tobacco industry in North Carolina. Instead I watched a man who rues the fact that his great grandfather lost his tobacco empire to the Duke family. And this went on and on. If Mr. McElwee's family had prevailed over the Dukes I doubt that Mr. McElwee would have any problems with the death toll caused by tobacco-related diseases. I grew up near the area where Mr. McElwee's family began it tobacco business ; I expected more than McEwee's continual focus on his family. I learned very little about the history of tobacco in the NC economy and the ramifications to the state's economy by tighter regulation of tobacco. The countless references to the movie "Bright Leaves" are out of place - So what if Gary Cooper played Mr. McElwee's great grandfather? Does the viewer gain any understanding of the role of tobacco in the North Carolina economy by the showing of old film clips of a fictionalized film? I didn't.@@@0 +Verhoeven's movie was utter and complete garbage. He's a disgusting hack of a director and should be ashamed. By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch.

Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It basically steals the name, mocks politics of the book (which is a good portion of it), and throws in some T&A so the average idiot American moviegoer doesn't get bored.

This anime isn't perfect, but it's at least mostly accurate, as best I can tell.@@@1 +When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this!@@@0 +Wang Bianlian is an old street performer who is known as a 'King of masks' for his mastery of Sichuan change art. Liang is a famous opera performer of Sichuan art and respects Wang as an artist and as a person. Liang is worried that a precious art shouldn't die with Wang and so he sows the seed of an heir in to Wang's mind. The film is about prejudices, male domination, state of art, values and most importantly warmth.

I can't recommend this film enough. The whole film is in loops. Everything has a significance. Its a long story which has been edited so well that the length of the film is just 91 minutes. A total satisfaction. For five minutes it is an artistic film, next five minutes its a sad film, next five minutes its a thriller. It just keeps changing its mood like its protagonist changes his face. Last scene on the rope is phenomenal. Story and script is flawless. Actors are brilliant. Both the protagonists are artists you can tell the way they have performed. Very impressive. It was not even nominated for Oscars. That year 'English patient' got the best film Oscar and in the foreign film category 'Kolya' won. 'Kolya' was just OK and about 'English patient' the lesser said the better. Watch it 9/10.@@@1 +The author sets out on a "journey of discovery" of his "roots" in the southern tobacco industry because he believes that the (completely and deservedly forgotten) movie "Bright Leaf" is about an ancestor of his. Its not, and he in fact discovers nothing of even mild interest in this absolutely silly and self-indulgent glorified home movie, suitable for screening at (the director's) drunken family reunions but certainly not for commercial - or even non-commercial release. A good reminder of why most independent films are not picked up by major studios - because they are boring, irrelevant and of no interest to anyone but the director and his/her immediate circles. Avoid at all costs!@@@0 +One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.

The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).

(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.

Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.

This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version.@@@1 +'The Curse of Frankenstein' sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley's story for one word of the title, which wouldn't be so bad if the changes were any good at all. The tragedy of the creature destroying Frankenstein's family has been completely excised and replaced with... nothing. The heart and moral centre of the story is gone. It doesn't help that this Frankenstein is a conniving, devious murderer; he deserves everything he gets. The plot is basically a shallow checklist of Frankenstein clichés. Even taken on its own terms, this is rubbish: a bland, rambling film featuring a shite-looking creature with a pudding bowl haircut. As it's the first of Hammer's horror films, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure. But it's crap.@@@0 +Wow. What a wonderful film. The script is nearly perfect it appears this is the only film written by Minglun Wei,I hope he has more stories in him.

The acting is sublime. Renying Zhou as Doggie was amazing -- very natural talent, and Xu Zhu was a delight - very believable as the jaded old traditionalist.

The soundtrack was very effective, guiding without being overwhelming.

If only more movies like this were made whether in Hollywood or Hong Kong- a family friendly, well acted, well written, well directed, near perfect gem.@@@1 +Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.

Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!@@@0 +The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.@@@1 +Now i have never ever seen a bad movie in all my years but what is with songs in the movie what physiological meaning does it have. WOW some demented Pokémon shows up and they multiply i can get a seizure from this. Animie is pointless the makers of it are pointless its a big marketing scheme look just cut down on songs and they will get a good rating i reckon that this movie would have been fine if they put out a message you must see all the Pokémon episodes to understand whats going on and it is not a film. It is just an animation it should be on video.

Ps: i'll give it a 1 because i just got 5 bucks i could not give it a half because there's no halves.@@@0 +The King of Masks is a beautifully told story that pits the familial gender preference towards males against human preference for love and companionship. Set in 1930s China during a time of floods, we meet Wang, an elderly street performer whose talents are magical and capture the awe of all who witness him. When a famous operatic performer sees and then befriends Wang, he invites Wang to join their troupe. However, we learn that Wang's family tradition allows him only to pass his secrets to a son. Learning that Wang is childless, Wang is encouraged to find an heir before the magic is lost forever. Taking the advice to heart, Wang purchases an 8 year old to fulfill his legacy; he would teach his new son, Doggie, the ancient art of silk masks. Soon, Wang discovers a fact about Doggie that threatens the rare and dying art.

Together, Wang and Doggie create a bond and experience the range of emotions that invariably accompany it. The story is absorbing. The setting is serene and the costuming simple. Summarily, it is an International Award winning art film which can't help but to move and inspire.@@@1 +pokemon the movie was a terrible film. unlike the first one, this is not a good film at all. the graphics were decent but the story was flat and no real drama was built up in it. in the first one the interaction between the characters were decent. the subtraction of brock and addition of tracey was bad. tracey really doesn't have much to say or do, and unlike brock offers no comic relief. the only good points is you get to see misty actually get jelous over ash, and her early brooding over being called his girlfriend was entertaining. overall this film isn't worth renting and the short movie before didn't do anything for me or my wife. and we do consider ourselves pokemon fans.oh well, maybe the next one will be better.cant ge t much worse@@@0 +This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.

But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.

Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.

But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.

But don't get me started on that...@@@1 +Much worse than the original. It was actually *painful* to sit through, and it barely held my six year old's interest.

Introduction of some new Pokemon is marginally interesting, but storyline is extra-thin, dialogue is still bad, and music is mediocre. Watch the television show instead - it's much better.@@@0 +King of Masks (Bian Lian in China) is a shockingly beautiful and profoundly touching film. Winner of 16 awards from around the world, this film based on a true story centers on Wang Bianlian, a street performer in 1930s China who is growing older but has no heir to pass on his art of face-change opera. He has a unique talent of quickly changing masks in performance, and no one knows how he does it. He has a longing desire to have a grandson, as his art is a family heirloom that can only be passed on to a male heir. We then go to the streets, and see that people are selling their children because they can't afford to take care of them: some are even begging to take their daughters for free, because daughters are not worth much in this society. Wang Bianlian's story goes on from there.

The film was so astonishingly good, the acting was amazing, and the issues were so weighty and well-addressed. There is the gender inequality and the depressing fact that in this time and place, no one wants a little girl. Also interesting to note is that the famed opera actor who always plays a woman and is known as the Living Bodhisattva is a man who dresses as a woman, and while he is famous and well-respected, he regards himself as something low, a half woman. As we go further into the film, the face the issues of human slave trade and its demand and thus the lack of a possible solution for it, the brutality and corruption of the military and police, and the helplessness and lack of power any individual can face due to unfortunate events or even good intentions.

This is definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life, and Xu Zhu, the actor who plays Wang Bianlian, presents yet another beautiful performance.@@@1 +I recently watched this again and there's another version which is shorter 1999. I get the feeling they are the same movie but I would like to know the difference.

One is Japanese and no pikachu short is all I can come up with. Ohtherwise why vote for the same movie twice??

Prof Ivy was rather boring. She sounded as if she was almost asleep, no expression at all with the few lines she had.

This was enjoyable enough but there wasn't much to it at all.

A collector (whos after Lugia, he has no plan to destroy the world) and the usual characters who try to stop him because trying to capture Lugia causes a lot of destruction.

The pokemon movies that follow are slightly better, deoxys (poke 7) is great, with no. 8 almost here.@@@0 +This is how movies are supposed to be made: a fascinating setting; characters about whom you come to care deeply; writing and editing that move the plot efficiently and build suspense. This is a wonderful film -- deeply moving without being sentimental. Highly recommended.@@@1 +I figured that it's about time I let this one out. Pokémon fans are suffering in America these days. Why? Because we rely on Kids WB and 4Kids Entertainment to provide us with our beloved series and movies. As far as the series goes, they do a pretty good job in bringing the fun and magic of the Japanese versions to television. So what is their problem when it comes to the movies? Honestly now, I have seen all three Pokémon movies in Japanese and I will definitely be seeing the fourth one. They are excellent movies. They are all enjoyable and fun to watch. And, after seeing Pokémon 2000 in theaters, I can't help but wonder how these American producers read the Japanese scripts. The way it appears, it seems that they read and see something that says `Insert empty moral here' in big bold faced letters. It definitely appears that way as they used the same wonderful dubbing methods they used on MSB (extreme sarcasm there) and created this crap.

*possible spoilers from here on*

Well, I guess I should first talk about Pikachu's Rescue Adventure. My first gripe with this came with no narration. I guess they got enough bad comments on the Pokédex narration that plagued Pikachu's Vacation, and, instead of going with a caring, gentle woman's voice as appeared in Pikachu no Natsu Yasumi and Pikachu Tankentai, they just cut the narration all together. This wouldn't have been a problem, except for one thing. Did anyone really understand why the Exeggcute didn't let Togepi go until the end? Possibly the fans, but I'm sure not the parents. Then, there's the theme song. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at this one. The Japanese theme song was `Tankentai wo Tsukurou' and was sung by Japanese children. It was fun and enjoyable. This one: nauseating. Now, one of my favorite parts of the short was the dancing Kireihana. Nice music, fun to watch. That's changed with the Bellossom. The music sucked for one, but on top of that, they had all the Pokémon talk during the music, which turned out to be jumpy, annoying, and just unnecessary. Oh, and then there's the Poliwhirl who thinks he's a Poliwrath. You'd think that guys that work with these characters constantly would at least learn what they are. Basically, not much could save this little ill fated dub, which is very unfortunate considering its potential. But, I haven't touched on the worst of it yet.

You'd think that the warning signs would've been apparent to me when I received my issue of Nintendo Power. For some unfathomable reason, I had been placing some faith in 4Kids and the WB. My thoughts were `well, they screwed up on the first movie, but the second is different as far as the theme goes, so they should do well.' That in mind, I just didn't pay attention to the warning signs I encountered in the theaters when the trailers said, `You will believe that one person can make all the difference.' With the way they said that at every turn, I was hoping that this would not turn into a moral fest like MSB did at the end of the English version. Then comes Nintendo Power, in which I see all my fears realized in the words `the main feature 'The Power of One.' At that point, I became a bit more uneasy. `The Power of One?!' Not a good sign. However, I still kept some of my false faith. Big mistake.

Sitting in the theater, I was literally getting stomach cramps watching another movie which I loved in Japanese being turned into complete and utter junk. I hear comments that say it was better because the moral was more subtle. I can see a point in that since they didn't pander this thing, repeating it over and over like in MSB. However, it did more damage than anything else in this movie. First of all, the legend that was read throughout was changed a bit to read `the world turns to Ash.' Ah hah. So, Ash is the chosen one? Whatever. In the Japanese version, the inhabitants of Arshia needed a Pokémon trainer to carry out their traditional ceremony. This time, he's the chosen one. A greater way that this did damage was to Lugia. Lugia was one of the coolest characters in a Pokémon movie.... when the movie was ABOUT Lugia. In this one, Lugia is forced to take a back seat to Ash. In the scene where they're flying back to the main island, Lugia and Ash are discussing the conditions of Lugia's existence, not that Ash is going to make all the difference. Overall in this category, Ash wasn't really the `one person' that would make the difference, since he was helped by many along the way.

A lot of the other stuff is kind of nit picking. Furura's flute song wasn't nearly as sweet and enjoyable as the Japanese one. Jirarudan's speech to them saying his collection `started with a Mew card?' Ugh. Even worse, Misty's outrage originally concerned the way Moltres and Zapdos were being held. `Why didn't you put them in Pokéballs when you caught them? This is like caging them to be displayed.' Much different from whining about him thinking Pokémon are things to be collected like stamps. If there were any real redeeming values in this, they came from Team Rocket. Some pretty funny lines. Not really to make me laugh out loud, but more to make me giggle and slightly ease the pains in my stomach. Well, that was officially the last American Pokémon movie I'm going to see. I've imported the third one and find it very enjoyable. I would rather not see another Japanese movie be ruined in the same fashion as the first two. I'll be importing the fourth one as well. Forget you, Kids WB and 4Kids. You have forsaken me for the last time.@@@0 +This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film.@@@1 +A cowboy sympathetic to the plight of a nearby Indian tribe is wrongly accused in the rape and murder of the chief's daughter, leading to much hate and violence.

This crackpot nudie feature is fun to look at, though thoroughly impossible to defend on any artistic level. The terrible costumes and the fact that all the Indians are obviously white, makes this look more like a live action cartoon than the serious production that it's press materials pretends it to be.

In short, the plentiful nudity (the real reason for watching this) is good. Everything else is not. There's definitely better examples of both genres.

More interesting is that The Ramrodder was filmed at the infamous Spahn Movie Ranch and features not one, but two members of the Manson family, Catherine Share and Bobby Beausoleil, who was probably already in the can for murder at the time this hit the soda-stained screens of the Pussycat Theater!@@@0 +This movie is worth seeing for the visual beauty and moving acting alone, but there also is an interesting cultural subtext of alienation. Women and performers (both brought together in a supporting role of a transvestite opera star) are both doomed to be relegated to subserviant roles in China. This makes the unlikely bonding between an aged street performer and a young girl even stronger as a triumph over the native culture.

The only problem I had with this movie was the tendency of the soundtrack to swell up with emotion rendered unnecessary by the actors' performance.

A welcome alternative to unsatisfying summer action movies.@@@1 +This is an awful film. Yea the girls are pretty but its not very good. The plot having a cowboy get involved with an Indian maiden would be interesting if the sex didn't get in the way. Well, okay it might be interesting, but its not, because its so badly paced and and only partly acted. I can only imagine what the close ups of the dancing tushes looked like on a big screen, probably more laughable then they do on TV. (I won't even mention the topless knife fight between two women who are tied together and spend the whole thing chest to chest. Never read about that in the old west) This is a film that requires liberal use of fast forward.

I like schlock films but this is ridiculous. There is a reason that I don't go for this sort of films and that they tend not be very good, the plot taking a back seat to breasts. The original nudie cuties as they are called were originally nudist films or films where there was no touching but as the adult industry began to grow the film makers either tried to be clever or tried to exploit something else in order to put butts in seats. The clever ones were very few which only left hacks who were of limited talent. The comedies often came off best with the humor approaching the first grade level, infantile but harmlessly fun. Something that could rarely be said about any other genre cross dressed as a nudie.

The Ramrodder looks good and has a couple of nice pieces but its done in by being neither western nor sex film.

I need not watch this again.

Of interest to probably no one, the rapist and killer in the film was played by Bobby Beausoleil, a member of the Manson family who was arrested for murdering a school teacher not long after filming wrapped.

Obviously these sort of things will ruin some peoples lives.@@@0 +Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the most faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.

The most obvious plus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. While events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is present. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far superior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The big payoff of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.

Overall, I enjoyed this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty well with this. If you can find this series, give it a look.@@@1 +OK so I hear about this new Justin Timberlake movie coming out which features some pretty big names. I mean great actors like, The Freeman aka Morgan Freeman, an asset to Hollywood, however completely wasted in this film. Then we got Kevin Spacey, who I've been a great fan of ever since I watched American Beauty and The Usual Suspects. Both of these great actors probably signed on to the movie thinking it was going to be a great movie as I did when I heard the story. Then enter a fresh faced Justin Timberlake. I say fresh faced because this is his first movie and those rotten tomatoes haven't hit him yet. Well the reason for that , I might add, is because no one will ever see this movie or even bother reading this review. The movie is so terrible that when i got into the first 15 minutes of it. The characters were so one dimensional that it makes some Bible characters look like the Don Corleone. They got the one liners and sound-bite worthy stuff. The token troubled black guy (LL COOL J) who is with a gorgeous woman who he otherwise would not even belong with in real life. The captain is this short whiny guy who speaks in such a high tone. And what crappy movie would be complete without the hero becoming richer because of an experience. Oh and lots of gun fire, i mean a whole lot. SPOILER(NOT!!!) THe kind of gun fire that leaves everyone in the police force who's crooked dead and the hero prevails. They got flame throwers and rocket launchers, REally no kidding.

Bottom line if you want to see Edison its because you are a great fan of one of the actors, or a great fan of Justin Timberlake, to all the 13 year old girls out there, enjoy!! I wish i had more hands, because then I would have more thumbs, because this movie is so terrible because then i could give it so many thumbs down that thumbs down would no longer mean anything because this movie is so terrible because it sucks so badly that it made me laugh out of frustration about the story line because it just would not end because the firing and yelling just kept happening.

MAY G*D HAVE MERCY ON US ALL and save us from these terrible movies. Well it could be worst, another RNB terrible actor turned singer turned terrible actor is usher, hehe check out IN THE MIX lol, or even Get rich or die trying'. Now the special thing about that movie is that its got 30+ year old men, playing 16 or even younger teens. I could go on with these.@@@0 +As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.

It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.@@@1 +Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George "Gabby" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.

Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a "dual role". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched.

*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm@@@0 +When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.

His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.

He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.

His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.

There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.

The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars.@@@1 +I saw this film at its premier at Sundance 09.

Since American Beauty is a movie that had something to say, I had hopes for Towelhead. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment. In fact, of countless movies I've seen in almost a dozen Sundance festivals, Towelhead is the only Sundance movie I've ever wanted to walk out early from.

The worst problem with Towelhead is that it so obviously originates with a collection of "provocative" concepts concerning cultural stereotypes, rather than with an organic human drama. The screenplay derives from the novel of the same name by Alicia Erian. The famous Edith Wharton quote comes to mind: I have never known a novel that was good enough to be good in spite of its being adapted to the author's political views. That observation is especially devastating for Towelhead because its political views are so stale and simplistic. If there ever was a time when Towelhead's white male villains, condescending portrayals of blacks, ironic treatments of foreign cultures, etc., were fresh, it's long past.

For a more detailed review, please look up any of the many professional reviews available online. Almost all rate this movie poorly and expose the shallow and manipulative tissue it is based on.

On the other hand, the amateur reviewers seem more easily bamboozled. As you read through the reviews in this and similar sites, you'll frequently come across superlatives: "stunning," "breathtaking," "profound," "shocking," ... It embarrasses me to read them, but it does not surprise me. Indeed, I've encountered many people who seem to regard any book or movie dealing with racial, cultural, gender, or sexual issues as deeply moving, thought provoking, full of profound insight. If you are such a person, by all means, rent Towelhead and be moved by it. On the other hand, if you set your standards higher, you can safely pass on this one.@@@0 +An unexpected pleasure as I had heard nothing about this film.

Shameful since it warrants having a wider audience.

A wonderfully humane story with a social message gently told, although admittedly predictable in its resolution. Solidly acted by the principals. Beautifully photographed with muted colors floating against grey that captures the nostalgic tone of the film.

My recent foray into Chinese film (Shower, The Road Home, Not One Less) has been an exciting one that I hope to continue exploring. China and its people is an amazing canvas for film-makers. "The King of Masks" can be highly recommended as a starting point for anyone similarly interested in recent Chinese film.

@@@1 +Unfortunately I made a mistake and I paid 7 Euros at the movie theater to watch this shallow meaningless movie. My points;

Film is based on 2 things;

1) Ethnical point of View: As it happens on most of the American Films, the writer thinks itself as an expert after learning 2 or 3 things about the Asian culture. But unfortunately it is not enough. Knowing kunefe and 2 names of other foods doesn't make a person understand a culture. For example shaving is the sign of clean life in Asia but everyone was trying the girl to stop that. Lebanese people are Christian (Ok they got that) and their cultural forms and beliefs and approaches are completely different from other Arabic countries. The main difference between eastern and western culture is we don't make ethnocentrism. So we don't judge people after their first question about our life as the father figure did in all of the film.

2) Sexual revolution of a girl: There is nothing much to say about this. Show me 10 girls which had these on their sexual awakening than I will say that I am wrong.

I wrote this comment because the producers are promoting the film in the black humor genre. Please watch Dr.Strangelove and understand the meaning of black humor. A black humor has to reflect the truth and has to focus the audience to the funny parts of it. Where is the truth? Where is the meaning about the movie.@@@0 +One of the great things about many of the superb Chinese movies you can find, if you are lucky, in the video stores, is they are very accurate retellings of actual, true stories. Farewell, my Concubine, The Emperor and the Assassin and this movie are perfect examples. The film makers take a true story and work hard to accurately create a movie without compromising the facts for dramatic or commercial convenience -- the hallmark of much Hollywood, and especially Disney films.

In this story we follow the later years of an famous local street performer dubbed the King of Masks for his mastery of Sichuan Change Art. Along an having lost his only son many years earlier, he searches to find a male heir to carry on his rare and dying art in a society that forbids females to have such work. Master Wang is sold a son by a slave trader. All is well as he joyfully prepares to pass down his art. But the son eventually is found out to be a girl. From there, the story get very interesting, with a good performance by Master Liang of the Sichuan Opera -- a regional operatic style related to Peking Opera. Fans of Farewell My Concubine should look carefully at Master Liang's portrayal of a male playing the female role in Chinese Opera. It may help them come to understand that the players of these female roles were probably not homosexuals or castrati, but people who have be so psychologically conditioned as to be totally unaware of their own sexuality.@@@1 +Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every "Godfather II," there are dozens of "More American Graffiti's," "Stayin' Alives," and "Grease 2's." While the original "Grease" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.

Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.

Reviewers have complained that, because "Grease 2" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for "Our Miss Brooks" and "Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour." The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, "Grease 2" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.@@@0 +quote by Nicolas Martin (nicmart) from Houston, TX: "Fine film, but DVD "reformatted for TV", 8 April 2002 - This is a charming and emotive film. On the other hand, the DVD I purchased has been "reformatted to fit your TV" by the clods at Columbia Tristar. There is no excuse for not providing the film in widescreen format, except that Hollywood treats all films like the moronic, disposable trash that it is so used to producing. What a shame."

What a (criminal!) shame indeed. However, there is another version out though. See here for details http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/kingofmasks.htm

Wonderful performances by the two main actors (The King and Doggie) BTW.@@@1 +The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.@@@0 +"Masks" is a moving film that works on many levels. At its simplest, it is the haunting story of a street performer who bonds with a young child while trying to pass along his creative art (masks) to the next generation. Although, at times the story makes the old man into a Job, it is so well crafted (written, acted, directed, wonderful production values), it is easy to move beyond his plight. And, if you hang with it, the film is ultimately very sweet and uplifting. Kudos all around. This is a wonderful film for children as well as adults. The trick is how to get Americans who may not like foreign language films to see it!@@@1 +I'm sorry, but even TJ Hooker's Adrian Zmed couldn't save this sequel. I went through half the movie thinking that this was a spoof of the original. Then came that wild and wacky motorcycle scene (notice that this is the only movie that Patricia Birch directs); and I sadly realized they were trying to be serious. I did get a kick out of the fact that the opposing gang, having lost their "wheels" due to their gambling habits in the original Grease, were forced to use motorcycles in the second movie. Being shamed by that putz character Carrington, I'd hate to see what they would resort to later: maybe Mopeds?

I also never bought the hackneyed theme: hunky-Australian-boy-can't-fit-into-Outsiders-dominated-school-ergo-goes-for -tough-guy-with-stupid-biker-helmet-look. It was Disney story gone horribly awry.

So, it looks like you CAN ruin a good thing by placing a bubble-gum smacking Michelle Pfeiffer in a musical. The only thing I took away from this movie was an idea of how many points out of ten to give it.@@@0 +Beautiful and touching movie. Rich colors, great settings, good acting and one of the most charming movies I have seen in a while. I never saw such an interesting setting when I was in China. My wife liked it so much she asked me to log on and rate it so other would enjoy too.@@@1 +The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.

Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.

That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.

Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.

In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.

It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great.@@@0 +This is probably my favorite movie of all time. It is perfection in its storytelling. It will break your heart not because it's over sentimental but because you will truly feel every emotion these characters go through. You feel for Doggie because of the hopeless situation that existed for young girls in China at that time.@@@1 +Well, at least my theater group did, lol. So of course I remember watching Grease since I was a little girl, while it was never my favorite musical or story, it does still hold a little special place in my heart since it's still a lot of fun to watch. I heard horrible things about Grease 2 and that's why I decided to never watch it, but my boyfriend said that it really wasn't all that bad and my friend agreed, so I decided to give it a shot, but I called them up and just laughed. First off the plot is totally stolen from the first one and it wasn't really clever, not to mention they just used the same characters, but with different names and actors. Tell me, how did the Pink Ladies and T-Birds continue years on after the former gangs left? Not to mention the creator face motor cycle enemy, gee, what a striking resemblance to the guys in the first film as well as these T-Birds were just stupid and ridiculous.

Another year at Rydell and the music and dancing hasn't stopped. But when a new student who is Sandy's cousin comes into the scene, he is love struck by a pink lady, Stephanie. But she must stick to the code where only Pink Ladies must stick with the T-Birds, so the new student, decides to train as a T-Bird to win her heart. So he dresses up as a rebel motor cycle bandit who can ride well and defeat the evil bikers from easily kicking the T-Bird's butts. But will he tell Stephanie who he really is or will she find out on her own? Well, find out for yourself.

Grease 2 is like a silly TV show of some sort that didn't work. The gang didn't click as well as the first Grease did, not to mention Frenchy coming back was a bit silly and unbelievable, because I thought that she graduated from Rydell, but apparently she didn't. The songs were not really that catchy; I'm glad that Michelle was able to bounce back so fast, but that's probably because she was the only one with talent in this silly little sequel, I wouldn't really recommend this film, other than if you are curious, but I warned you, this is just a pathetic attempt at more money from the famous musical.

2/10@@@0 +It's a tale that could have taken place anywhere really, given the right circumstances. Street entertainer catching the attention of famous opera star and friendship ensuing. The aging entertainer finds/buys a male child to pass his art to. From there, we follow them through the rigors of their challenging, but free life along the river. Traveling town to town, he performs and has some degree of notoriety. Despite the times and the influences, the man is kind and good.

Overall, the performances are first rate, especially Xu Zhu, who portrays the street performer. The child (Renying Zhou) is beautiful, and downright strong, and withstands the overt prejudices well. The two protagonists, along with supporting help from the kind opera singer, Master Liang (an interestingly androgynous Zhao Zhigang), paint a very interesting tale of forgiveness, sadness and love. Some have mentioned this film's remote similarities to BA WANG BIE JI (FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE); yet this film can't stand easily on its own, any resemblance is remote at best.

My only qualm with the KING OF MASKS, is the ending. It was weak, cliche and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The audience was already wrapped up in the story, what was the needless manipulation for? What a shame. To bring a fine motion picture that far, only to surrender to emotional (and corny) pathos like that. It frankly made this film good, instead of the classic, it should've been. That aside, the KING OF MASKS is still very well worth your time. I was happy to see the Shaw Brothers are still producing good films. Highly recommended.@@@1 +Boy-girl love affair/sequel with songs, only this time she's the punkette and he's the straight arrow. Movie-buffs out there actually like this movie? It has fans? I must say, the mind reels... "Grease 2" is a truly lame enterprise that doesn't even have the courage, moxy or sheer gall to take the memory of its predecessor down in flames (like "Jaws 2" or "Exorcist II"). No, it whimpers along in slow-motion and often just plays dead. It looks and feels cheap, with a large cast lost amidst messy direction and unfocused handling. This was the first time a substantial audience got a glimpse of Michelle Pfeiffer and, although she doesn't embarrass herself, it's a role worth forgetting. A misfire on the lowest of levels. NO STARS from ****@@@0 +I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed.@@@1 +When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as "brilliant" or "fun" or "better than the original Grease," you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.

If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.

For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows…

1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ("Score Tonight," "Reproduction," "Do It For Our Country," and "Prowlin'") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.

2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds.

3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.

I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.@@@0 +OK, let's get this clear. I'm really not into sci-fi, but for some reason I love Stargate SG-1.

Jack O'Neil takes his team SG-1 through a Stargate. A round device that creates a wormhole. It gives you the ability to travel to distant worlds. It might sound like your usual sci-fi-series, but it's not! The plot is set today not in some distant millennium like many other sci-fi-series. I find that great. It gives you things, happenings and such you can relate to, and you can jump into the series at any time without having to learn many new terms and names of all the gadgets. They have some of course but thanks to O'Neil who likes to keep a simple terminology, there's not many.

The series has a nice blending of action, humor and drama. If you enjoy loads of special effects you're not going to find it here. They don't use many bad ones but a limited amount of well made special effects.@@@1 +I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).

The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.

It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.

Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.@@@0 +In the rapid economic development of 1990's in China, there is a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture, partially due to the rise of nationalism accompanied by the increase in wealth, and more importantly, due to the sense of spiritual belonging after the collapse of the old socialist ideology in the post Cultural-Revolutionary era.

However, the resurgence of Chinese traditional culture, namely, the Confucianism, was not without disasters, because Chinese are adopted the entire tradition without eliminating the bad part, and the discrimination against girls demonstrated in this film is an excellent example.

Moreover, not only the part that should be discarded were inherited, the good part that was supposed to be inherited, such as the traditional opera, and its technique, such as changing face, was ignored in the resurgence, and facing extinction.

The director used this film to criticize the problem of re-embracing tradition by contemporary China and this is the deeper meaning behind the movie.@@@1 +I had to do a search on the actresses to find the board of this film because the title is now An Unexpected Love. It's not really worth looking for but I was unfamiliar with both leads and wondered why they were headlining a lesbian flick on Lifetime. Everything's pretty restrained and you don't really get an idea of who these characters are so, as a viewer, I wasn't able to become emotionally invested in the storyline. I guess I'm not the target audience for this but I'm not sure who is. Everything's muted and soft focus and earth tones...nothing's very interesting. I had a prurient interest in seeing two women make out but it's handled so discreetly that I was disappointed. Rent Personal Best instead.@@@0 +This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.

The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.

The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.

Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small.@@@1 +I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.@@@0 +The movie is truly poignant, unique and uplifting. The story is universal in that it's a battle between good, evil and the world between. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is that its rating is wrong, misleading, and a travesty. Blockbuster has it rated as though it were an X rated movie. The truth is is that it is closer to G than PG and should be seen by children who can read the clear and simple sub-titles.@@@1 +I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.@@@0 +The fact that this film was put out on DVD still formatted-to TV and with a fuzzy picture really annoyed a lot of film purists......and rightly so. This deserves a lot better treatment.

The story is about a street performer who needs a son to pass on his craft (the rules of the day) and winds up with a little girl instead (not the conventional way) ....and the problems that ensue afterward. The old man had bought the kid at a slave auction and soon discovers the kid is not a boy, which he obviously thought was the case.

The old man "Bianlian Wang (Xu Zhu)is kind of funny-looking with a missing front tooth and an infectious grin. The little girl "Doggie" (Zhou Renying) is a cutie. The rest of the story is how the two manage after that. I usually like a nice sentimental ending but this gets a bit carried away in the final 15 minutes.

Overall, it's involving story complete with drama, suspense, humor and sadness. Just don't expect a good quality picture for the money you are spending on the DVD. Until it comes out on widescreen, rent it.@@@1 +They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over!@@@0 +This spectacular film is one of the most amazing movies I have ever seen. It shows a China I had never seen or imagined, and I believe it shows 1930's China in the most REAL light ever seen in a movie. It is absolutely heart-breaking in so many situations, seeing how hard life was for the characters, and yet the story and the ending are incredibly joyful. You truly see the depths and heigths of human existence in this film. The actors are all perfect, such that you feel like you have really entered a different world.

I simply can not recommend this movie highly enough. It may just change you forever once you have seen it.@@@1 +This movie was okay, but it certainly defeats the claim that homosexuals are "born that way," especially when a woman can exit out of an unhappy marriage and just fall into the arms of another woman. It almost seems as if Kate's gender preferences turned on and off like a switch, making this film seem a little simplistic.

Also, as is common with films that are trying to push an agenda, it was unfortunate that those characters in the film who had questions or disapproval over the gay lifestyle were labeled as "bigots." And there was no happy medium. It was either Kate's friends and relatives totally embraced her or they totally shunned her. This is not typical of interactions between gay and non-gay relatives and friends. It is usually a mixture of emotions and values that come into play. It is possible to love people and treat them with respect while not necessarily condoning the choices they make. Sadly, the movie showed none of these types of interactions. For a movie trying to portray tolerance and acceptance, it struck me as very intolerant movie! Then at the end, Kate apparently decides after all these years she wants to be with Mac and everything is hunky dory - is that what being gay is really all about? Come on!@@@0 +I just saw this movie today with my children (son, 10 and daughter, 4.5) at the 3rd Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. After the film the children in the audience were allowed to ask questions to the Director, Tian-Ming Wu. He (through a translator) told several stories about his life and the making of the film.

All tangents aside, both of my children really enjoyed this movie. Of course, I had to paraphrase many of the subtitles for my daughter, but much of the film is visually self-explanatory.

I won't give anything away, but the bottom line is that this film is SO MUCH better than 95% of the Hollywood crap (especially children's films) out there.

Cheers.

p.s. There is a "real"/original King of Masks who can/could do 12 masks at once. The actor in the movie trained and learned to do up to 4 masks at a time (then they would cut and change to 4 new masks).@@@1 +Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? "An Unexpected Love" - ooh, how provocative!! "This Much I know" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who "turns" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?@@@0 +This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning.@@@1 +I remember watching this film in the eighties as a teenager. But i wanted to see it again, because Traci Lords is now earning a living as a "serious actor". What the hell was going on in the eighties? This is a really bad film with bad taste and bad actors. Definitely a waste of money.@@@0 +Fabulous costumes by Edith Head who painted them on Liz Taylor at her finest!

The SFX are very good for a movie of its age, and the stunt doubles actually looked like the actors, even down to body type, a rarity in movies of this vintage.

A cozy movie, with splendid panoramas -- even when chopped down to pan and scan.@@@1 +This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.

A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.

While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.

A creepy film; worth seeing!@@@0 +Elephant Walk (1954) Starring an early Peter Finch as lord of the manor in some God-forsaken plantation where there is always the danger of elephants or mad Englishmen, staying out in the midday sun and going berserk. Well eventually they do, after the typhoid or cholera outbreak, of course, and much mayhem ensues. Taylor replaced an ailing Vivien Leigh in this pot boiler/adventure flick. When the elephants storm the house and trap Liz on the grand staircase I still get goose bumps. Thank goodness Dana Andrews is around to save the day. One of my favorite guilty pleasures. In color too!@@@1 +I am an actor,producer, director and what i am about to say are facts. This project was the worst film in movie making history. From producer to director and the edit of this so called film is a joke and i mean a BIG joke. Why would Blockbuster released such crap? I take my work very serious and this film is an insult to my profession. Was the director trying to make a bad movie? I don't think so. I seen bad Zombie movies, but this takes the cake the Coffie and everything on the damn table. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!! I really hate to talk bad about other filmmakers because i am one myself, but please consider in taking up a different profession. I respect the fact that you completed a movie, but i have to ask you " WERE YOU SMOKING CRACK ", I mean the makeup on your girls, the scary Zombies, what were you thinking. To the whole nation, if i could have voted Zero i would have. WORST FILM IN MOVIE MAKING HISTORY!!!@@@0 +. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today.@@@1 +German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.

Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.

The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.

The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.

The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.

Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.

More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.

After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.

At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.

Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.

I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.@@@0 +I got in to this excellent program in about season 4 and since then i have seen all the episodes got all the episodes on DVD and keeps getting better and better with the seasons of 9 and 10. It now may not have Richard Dean Anderson now but the addition of Ben Browder and Claudie Black it has still given the show more strength and original still even after 10 seasons. Sadly now the sci-fi channel got rid of this amazing show with no hope relay for a 11 season there are making two direct to DVD movie and hopefully more. Atlantis is still going strong on its 4th seasons. And there is a third spin off in the works the stargate franchise is nowhere near dead. This TV show is a must see for all sci-fi fans and people of genres because this has such a wide range of things to appeal to all ages and all types of people Watch IT !!!!! 10/10@@@1 +The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad.

Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it.

Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.

And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.@@@0 +I was prepared for a turgid talky soap opera cum travelogue, but was pleased to find a fast-paced script, an underlying moral, excellent portrayals from all the actors, especially Peter Finch, amazing special effects, suspense, and beautiful cinematography--there's even a shot of the majestic stone Buddhas recently destroyed by the Taliban. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor at her most gloriously beautiful and sympathetic, before she gave in to the gaspy hysterics that marred her later work. All the supporting players round it out, and I do wonder who trained all those elephants.

Speaking of the stone-Buddha sequence, you really can discern that it's Vivien Leigh in the long shots. Her shape and the way she moves is distinct from Taylor's. The only thing marring that sequence are the poorly done process shots, where the background moves by much too fast for horses at a walk.

If you want a thought-provoking film that is beautiful to watch and never boring, spend a few hours with Elephant Walk.@@@1 +This movie is a joke. I mean a "ha ha" funny joke. Why? Because the only redeeming thing about it was the good laugh I got at the sheer ridiculousness of nonsensical, inane plot and horrible acting. Wow!

Within this movie there are so many unanswered questions... for example; why do these women become zombies and how? Why are there four black women who are zombie's "caretakers" and what is their purpose? Since when does 6 people make up a "nation" of Zombies? And is smeared black eye mascara "scary" to anyone, anywhere? Even a 2 year old?

And lastly; Why was this movie made at all? Why? why? why? No answer? That's what I thought.

On the demand channel they actually issued this comment after the synopsis of the movie: We apologize for this movie in advance" LOL. At least they had the decency to do this much!@@@0 +I watched "Elephant Walk" for the first time in about 30 years and was struck by how similar the story line is to the greatly superior "Rebecca." As others have said, you have the sweet young thing swept off her feet by the alternately charming and brooding lord of the manor, only to find her marriage threatened by the inescapable memory of a larger-than-life yet deeply flawed relative. You have the stern and disapproving servant, a crisis that will either bind the couple together or tear them irreparably apart, climaxed by the fiery destruction of the lavish homestead.

Meanwhile, "Elephant Walk" also owes some of its creepy jungle atmosphere to "The Letter," the Bette Davis love triangle set on a Singapore rubber plantation rather than a Sri Lankan tea plantation.

Maltin gives "Elephant Walk" just two stars, and IMDb readers aren't much kinder, but I enjoyed it despite its predictability. Elizabeth Taylor never looked lovelier, and Peter Finch does a credible job as the basically good man unable to shake off the influence of his overbearing father. Dana Andrews -- a favorite in "Laura" and "The Best Year of Our Lives" -- is wasted as Elizabeth's frustrated admirer. The real star is the bungalow, one of the most beautiful interior sets in movie history.@@@1 +I cannot believe that this movie was ever created. I think at points the director is trying to make it an artistic piece but this just makes it worse. The zombies look like they applied too much eye makeup. The zombies are only in the movie for a few minutes. Finally, there are maybe five or six zombies total, definitely not a nation. The best part of the movie, if there is one is definitely the credits because the painful experience was finally finished. Again to reiterate other user comments, the voodoo priestesses are strange and do not make much sense in the whole movie. Also, there is a scene with a snake and a romanian girl that just does not make sense at all. It is never explained.@@@0 +The scintillating Elizabeth Taylor stars in this lesser-known classic as a young girl from London who falls in love with a tea plantation owner from British Ceylon (current day Sri Lanka). Upon arrival she instantly feels out of place and is forced to adapt to the new culture as well as be in constant awareness of the angry elephant herd. William Dieterle, who also directed The Life Of Emile Zola and Portrait Of Jennie , does a masterful job of bringing a somewhat dark, and almost eerie, undertone to this romance and the setting is one of the most beautiful I've seen with the black and white themed mansion and the gorgeous island scenery.@@@1 +Seriously crappy movie.

First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).

The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.

Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.

So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.@@@0 +A beautiful shopgirl in London is swept off her feet by a millionaire tea plantation owner and soon finds herself married and living with him at his villa in British Ceylon. Although based upon the book by Robert Standish, this initial set-up is highly reminiscent of Hitchock's "Rebecca", with leading lady Elizabeth Taylor clashing with the imposing chief of staff at the mansion and (almost immediately) her own husband, who is still under the thumb of his deceased-but-dominant father. Taylor, a last-minute substitute for an ailing Vivien Leigh, looks creamy-smooth in her high fashion wardrobe, and her performance is quite strong; however, once husband Peter Finch starts drinking heavily and barking orders at her, one might think her dedication to him rather masochistic (this feeling hampers the ending as well). Still, the film offers a heady lot for soap buffs: romantic drama, a bit of travelogue, interpretive dance, an elephant stampede, and a perfectly-timed outbreak of cholera! *** from ****@@@1 +I cant believe blockbuster carries this movie. It was SO BAD. I was totally fooled by the box art. DON'T BE FOOLED!! Its not worth your time I promise you. I don't know if the positive reviews for this flick were a joke or what. I am so disappointed. :(

The description on the back of the box doesn't even match! The girl that has the voodoo done on her is a stripper. The synopsis on the back says she is only 17. Did the people writing the description for the film even bother to watch it!? Those positive reviews had to be a joke they just had to be. If anyone actually liked this flick then I've lost all faith in humanity.

And don't even get me started on the story compared to the title. Or the fact that the entire movie was done all in 2 locations. Or that the cops didn't even have close to real uniforms. Why would i even say that?? Who cares about the cops uniforms!? Compared to the rest of the movie the uniforms were spot on.

This movie is an insult to the zombie genre and all of its fans.@@@0 +ELEPHANT WALK may not be the acme of literature or of film, but it is great entertainment in the quasi-melodramatic mode. It is the story of love, both genuine and illicit, as well as overweening ambition, devotion, and the arrogance of personal tyranny. A previous reviewer, John Mankin, questions why the central focus of the film, the mansion called Elephant Walk, should have been built by the former owner, the "governor" the late Tom Wiley, right across the elephants' traditional path to the major source of water, the river. To miss this point is to essentially miss the point of the whole center of the film: the hubris of man. That his son, played by Peter Finch, should become enthralled by the super image and enigma of his revered father, is not unexpected, since the son was without a mother growing up in a foreign jungle with only his father and his father's rowdy 'boys' club' as his role models. The point of the father was that he was a self-made man who would tame nature to his liking, and that liking was not just a tea plantation upon the lands the elephants once dominated, but also that he would dominate even the large bull elephant that led the herd, and thus he would dominate his son and all around him, and so we join the tale after the elephants have been denied the crucial dry season access to their pathway to water. Who could know that this dry season would last so long and what the elephants would do in desperation to get water? This is the nexus of the film: what will animals do to get water; what will humans do to get power or love? Ceylon, today's Sri Lanka, is the huge island off the coast of India where the plantation is located and one quickly learns that it is the real scenery of the story, not just the expenses of Miss Taylor. Were it not for this exotic location (much of the film was shot in Ceylon), and the magnificent "bungalow" this would have been just another potboiler. One must recognize the atmosphere created here as integral to the time and place, as it illuminates the latter day wealth and power attained by the English immigrant 'conquerors' that were part and parcel of the British raj. It is only such wealth gained by the use of virtual slave labor that one could build so magnificent a residence of ebony, teak, and marble. Not to be overlooked are the wonderfully carved Jalees (grille work window and doorway borders) evidently specified by art directors J. McMillan Johnson and Hal Pereira and obviously made by the cheaper labor on the island. Such craftsmanship reveals the careful attention to detail that these men sought.

For those immune to the blandishments of time, place, and architecture, there is always the allure of Miss Taylor, as she marries a man she doesn't really know and is tacitly wooed by a another man, against the background described, and under the overarching tyranny of the legacy of a man deceased. As I said, it is not great literature nor even great film, but it is great spectacle long before that term was debased by the special effects extravaganzas of today.

This is one of those films made to be seen on the giant screen of an outdoor drive-in, not on the home TV, so arrange the largest screen to see it on to fully appreciate its fine camera-work and scope.@@@1 +Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever "zombie" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying "This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative@@@0 +My parents took me to this movie when I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it. I had never before seen anything as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. (She was twenty-two when she made Elephant Walk) Remember, I'm nine, so the feelings aren't sexual, I just couldn't see anything else on the screen. I just wanted to sit at her feet like a puppy and stare up at her. She has begun to show her age, (She's almost seventy-four) but I still believe her to be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking women to ever have lived.

I have seen the movie several times since, and it is a sappy melodrama. What saves it is, of course, Miss Taylor's beauty, magnificent scenery, the very impressive elephant stampede, and a well-made point on human arrogance in the face of nature.

All in all, a well-spent couple of hours watching the movie channel or a rented video.@@@1 +Someone actually gave this movie 2 stars. There's a very high chance they need immediate professional help as anyone who doesn't spend 30 seconds to see if you can award no stars is quite literally scary.

This film is ... well ... I guess it's pretty much some kind of attempt at a horrible porn / snuff movie with no porn or no real horrible bits (apart from the acting, plot, story, sets, dialogue and sound). I wrongly assumed it was about zombies.

Watching it is actually quite scary in fairness; you're terrified someone will come over and you'll never be able to describe what it is and they'll go away thinking you're a freak that watches home-made amateur torture videos or something along those lines.

I'm so taken aback I'm writing this review on my mobile so I don't forget to attempt to bring the rating down further than the current 1.6 to save others from the same horrible fate that I just suffered.

I worst film I've ever seen and I can say (with hand on heart) it will never, never be topped.@@@0 +Robert Standish's novel is about a triangular romantic situation on a Ceylonese tea plantation... So the events of the Ceylon backgrounds and pictorial beauty are rewarding points to William Dieterle's film...

The story is about a rich powerful planter (Peter Finch), who brings a charming and tender beauty (Elizabeth Taylor), into the jungle as his bride... The plantation, of course, is endangered by some kind of wild life... For this reason Taylor — elegant as never in dazzling costumes — finds herself in a strange atmosphere... The echo determination of a ghost, the bad temper of a husband obsessed by the memory of his autocratic father, a highly dangerous disease, and the fury of wild animals...

In her confusion, boredom and annoyance Elizabeth Taylor looks to a friendly face, a pretentious foreman (Dana Andrews), who admires her beauty but tries to conquer her love...

With echoes of "Jane Eyre," the mysterious Yorkshire mansion with a brooding master, and "Rebecca," the innocent young second wife hunted by the image of the glamorous first wife, "Elephant Walk" is a menace melodrama with a wide view of a huge tropical bungalow, exotic dances with rage excessively colorful, stampeding big bull elephants, amazing mansion set on fire, all in the company of an exquisite creature with an unquestioned beauty and talent...

The movie gave Liz a change of scenery, and allowed her more creative energy and self-respect than most of her other willful debutante-rebels… The wife here has a sharp tongue and a strong will, and so Taylor plays her movie star heroine with more spirit than she was given credit for…@@@1 +This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy.@@@0 +One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.

The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".

Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.

The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.

The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...

Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended.@@@1 +I stopped by BB and picked up 4 zombie flicks to watch over the weekend. Now, I understand that the effects will be cheesy, the acting will be sub-par, and the sets will be suspect. So I'm not expecting much. But it should at least have a story. Stories don't cost a thing except time.....apparently, they didn't have any time either.

"Zombie Nation" had 5 zombies that appeared near the end of the movie that all looked like new wave hookers. The picture of the zombie on the front cover NEVER appears in the movie. It was absolutely agonizing to watch and had nothing to offer the genre.

The running time is only 81 minutes but it felt like 2 hours. According to my wife (who could only hear the movie since she was on the computer in another room), it sounded like zombie porn....which if you think about, sounds kinda gross.....but it wasn't even that good.

The only suggestion I can make is that maybe the writer tried to do too many things and ended up with an incoherent mess.

It ended up being a free rental and I still feel ripped off. I rated it a 1 out of 10 because IMDb won't allow me to use decimals.@@@0 +Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules.@@@1 +Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.

*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.

The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.

DON"T BOTHER!@@@0 +The anime that got me hooked on anime...

Set in the year 2010 (hey, that's not too far away now!) the Earth is now poison gas wasteland of pollution and violence. Seeing as how crimes are happening ever 30 seconds are so and committed by thieves who have the fire power of third world terrorists, the government of the fictional New Port City form the Tank Police to deal with the problem - cops with tanks! Oh the insanity!

The "heroes" of this series include the new recruit Leona Ozaki, a red haired Japanese woman (yeah I know, they never match their distinctly Japanese names with a Japanese appearance) who has just been drafted into the Tank Police and is quickly partnered with blond, blue eyed nice guy Al. Leona is new at using tanks and unfortunately she destroys the favorite tank of Tank Police Commander Charles Britain (also known as "Brenten"), a big guy who looks like Tom Selleck on steroids and sporting a pair of nifty sunglasses, a big revolver and a bad temper. Britain didn't like having Leona join the Tank Police in the first place and her wrecking his Tiger Special (a giant green monster tank) doesn't exactly endear her to him, nor is he fond of her taking the remains of his giant tank and using it to build a mini-tank that she nicknames Bonaparte and he is soon pushing to have her transferred to child welfare "where the boys are more your size" as he puts it. There's also Specs, the bifocal genius, Bible quoting/God fearing Chaplain, purple MO-hawked Mohican, and the pot bellied Chief, who's right on the edge thanks to the Mayor always yelling at him about the Tank Police antics. Seeing as how the tank cops often destroy half the city while chasing the bad guys and use extreme violence to capture them, they're not very well liked by the people.

The "villains" are a cyborg named Buaku who's got a mysterious past that's connected with a project known as "Green Peace", his gang and his two sexy cat cyborg sidekicks Anna & Uni Puma. In the first installment these guys are being paid to steal urine samples from a hospital treating people who haven't been infected by the poison gas clouds and in the 2nd they're hired to steal a painting that is of a naked Buaku. The story, however, was uncompleted in the anime and was finished up in a cult comic ("Manga") book that's very hard to find.

All sorts of chaos and mayhem ensue in this black comic venture that examines how far people want their police to go in order to catch criminals and what happens when the fine line between good guys and bad guys starts to get blurred. This is the kind of thing that if you were going to make a movie of it, you'd better go get Quentin Tarantino. Uneven in places but still a lot of fun.

Followed by "New Dominion: Tank Police".@@@1 +Thank God! I didn't waste my money renting it but i downloaded it! This happens to be the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life, f*****g visual effects, unnecessary gore and nudity! Far apart from other Zombie movies like Night of the Living Dead and others. There are lots of loop holes and mistakes in the movie. OK if you get time after reading this comment, please check out the director's(Ulli Lommel) profile. After seeing that i got a self explanation why the movie is like this, i mean every movie directed by Ulli Lommel gets a rating between 1 and 2. And now am not willing to search what kinda movies these are directed by him, but i can finish all this by saying one strong sentence. Even for fun or time pass or even at an extreme bored situation please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.@@@0 +Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.

Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.

But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.

In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.

And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.

I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.

So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about.@@@1 +*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an "on-the-edge" bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.

You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.

Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend.@@@0 +Scott Bartlett's 'OffOn' is nine minutes of pure craziness. It is a full-frontal assault of psychedelic, pulsating, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights and colours, and the first true merging of film and video in avante-garde cinema. There's no story to speak of, but Bartlett uses images of nature – particularly the human face and form – to provoke a sequence of emotional reactions, integrating these biological phenomena into the highly-industrial form of modern technology. In a sense, the film represents the merging of humanity into his tools, his machinery, his technology. This theme connects loosely with the subplot of HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),' and, indeed, Bartlett's opening sequence of images – flashing colours before a close-up human eye – recalls Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. The visuals are richly-coloured, a confronting blend of sharp, vivid photography and increasingly-grainy video, as though we're sitting too close to a television screen {as a matter of fact, the end product was recorded from a TV monitor}.

There appears to be some confusion about the film's release date. IMDb lists the film as a 1972 release, but both the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Foundation give 1968 as the correct year. Perhaps this disparity reflects the time between the film's completion and its first public screening. Either way, the visuals are distinctly ahead of their time, occasionally reminiscent of a 1980s music video, and some brisk techno music wouldn't have gone amiss, either! 'OffOn' captures grainy, fragmented images, presenting life from the warped perspective of a computer processing too much information. I had a thought – and please don't laugh at this free-thinking interpretation – that an extraterrestrial civilisation capturing Earth's television signals might very well receive such a disjointed, alien documentation of human life, a bizarre montage of only vaguely-familiar imagery that couldn't possibly make any coherent sense. Perhaps this is where Mankind, with all his technology, is eventually heading, towards an irreversible merging of film and video, of purity and artificiality.@@@1 +OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.

And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.

overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.@@@0 +I stumbled across this (Act-I) by pure dumb luck and this was more than a decade ago. This was'nt even what the cover label on the tape mentioned. It amazed me. It intimidated me. It shocked me. I eventually forgot about and almost a decade later, I happened to think about it again. Then went and bought both acts. They were even better than I had experienced at first.

My only complaint is that while the Tank Police keep on going on and on about being at war with crime, warranting tanks and heavy artillery, it would seem as though they are really having a hard time with criminals. That is either never shown or is simply a lie as they appear to be taking it easy most of the time. If that bit about being in a state of war was really propaganda, it certainly has not been shown as such.

I don't think the original Japanese version could have been any where as good as the Americanized version of this. But regarding the story, there has certainly been some proper explanations lost in translation but it can be excused.@@@1 +usually I support independent art and i try to be very comprehensive and tolerant...i tend to support everybody, because their efforts are worth...

but this movie just moves away from all comprehension and tolerance limits!

imagine the following situation:

1. think about the REALLY WORST horror movie you have ever seen in your life so far.

2. think about some great, attractive ART for that movie's DVD box...and a promising plot...

3. voilà! you got ZOMBIE NATION.

see it only if you really don't have anything else better to do. ANYTHING is better.@@@0 +Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime.@@@1 +Notice I have given this 1 star if the option been given I would have given this zero. As I put this DVD into my TV and sat down on my couch I was expecting some of the worst film making at its finest. I looked this movie up on IMDb and saw that it was the worst rated movie so I guess I came into it critical of every mistake. But it didn't prepare me for the crap that was about to spew from my television screen.

The box makes this movie out to look …well OK at best. DO NOT LET THAT FOOL YOU. This movie needs to be banned from all shelves around the world.

The best way I can describe this movie is like porn but without any sex scenes in it. The acting (if you can call it that), the "plot" (so many holes must look like Swiss cheese), and the special effects really are just terrible.

Please do not be like me and rent this movie because you think it will be funny to watch.

In the end I'm not saying I can make a better movie than this, but I am thinking it.@@@0 +I have to start saying it has been a long time since I have seen it, but have seen it 5 or more times; a wonderful little romp that was clearly inspired by the musical/comedy pairings of new or fading stars with musical groups of prominence. Kay Kyser's mysteries would be a good example.

Having Spike Jones unleashed is the best part of the show, as he and his band play many tunes and are a part of the action, doing a fine job of support. Hugh O'Brien plays the face, Buddy Hackett the part rumor has it that was offered to Lou Costello and thus, Abbott and Costello replacing the leads. Don't know if that was true.

all in all, a pleasant movie, but important to have that much Spike Jones and his band on film for history. Wish that it was released, as I haven't seen or heard of it now in two decades. Hope it is not lost@@@1 +If ever there was a film that deserved a big fat zero rating it's this pile of crap. I love zombie films and even bad ones usually have something going for them but not this atrocity. I actually began to feel angry watching this film because it's so insultingly poor, I can't believe the people responsible for it would actually think this was acceptable.

There's no plot and the non-plot is cut with scenes of sadism and spanking. The people don't react, act or in any way resemble human beings. The entire movie is also shot in two rooms scantily decorated to vaguely resemble the places they are supposed to be. The whole thing is one pointless mess, it doesn't go anywhere and when the zombies finally turn up they look rubbish and don't do very much.

I could make a better film than this, so could you and so could someone who had never seen a movie before. It's pitiful and without doubt the worst movie of all time.

Honestly, the very worst movie of all time. You'll note by the way that the only positive reviews give this a 10/10 and urge you to BUY the DVD. I can't imagine anyone neutral genuinely thinking this is a good film, it's terrible.

0/10 and that's generous.@@@0 +I've spent years looking for a copy of this film(16mm,dvd,vhs), so I could show it to my kids. The movie is funny, and Spike and the members of his band show why they were the best musicians in the business. They had to be that good to play that demented. I like it and recommend it for movie lovers of all ages.

The movie is about a turn of the century firehouse, with a crew of misfits that are firemen and the department band (when not fighting the fires). There's the usual running gags, plus the mayhem of Spike Jones and his Orchestra. Also, comedy relief provided by comedian Buddy Hackett and straight-man Hugh O'Brien.@@@1 +This movie had me going. The title was perhaps the greatest idea that I heard. I thought it was an independent movie about a zombie outbreak and their quest to take over the US and a group of lone survivors, band together, and plan to take out the zombies. DEAD WRONG! It's about a psycho cop with a weakness for killing his female arrests gets what's coming to him when a pack of zombie women rise from their graves in order to get proper revenge. As you can see there is nothing about the nation nor a county involved. Where to begin with the severity this cinematic disaster caused our nation.

First off, the zombie women look like Victoria Secret models with dark eyeliner and a pale face. What are zombies but mindless, debatable intelligent, cannibalistic killing machines that eat as a result of their primitive most basic needs? These zombie women walk like streetwalkers and runway models, they talk as if they are in a poor film noir movie and not do they act like real zombies. Sure the eating and killing is there, but where is the mindlessness and the horrible disfigurement? Although it is a very interesting concept and perhaps a great satire on the zombie genre, it makes fun of that genre and asks the question, "why can't zombies be beautiful vixen killing machines?" I would say that this movie would be considered a really bad indie movie that was produced and made by garage junkies. I would not recommend this movie to anybody that loves zombie genres too much, it's an insult and as for scary…not even.@@@0 +The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great.

I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie.

Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot.

And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.

The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya.

A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema.@@@1 +I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.

The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.

This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening!

The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review.

Absolutely WORTHLESS.@@@0 +Directed by Govind Nihalani, this is definite cop film of Indian cinema. May be the first one which portrayed the stark reality of corruption in the police force & politics with no holds barred & how it effects on a young cop. A man forced to join a career of a cop by his cop father. Agreed that we grew up watching lot of good cop/bad cop Hindi films but this is different. Today's generation, which grown up watching dark & realistic films like- 'Satya', 'Company' may be consider it inferior product in comparison but look at the time of its making. The film was made absolutely off beat tone in the time when people didn't pay much attention to such kind of cinema & yet it becomes a most sought after cop film in class & mass audience when it released. For Om Puri its first breakthrough in mainstream Hindi cinema & he delivered a class performance as Inspector Velankar. Its more than cop character, he internalized a lot which is something original in acting. Watch his scenes with his father whom he hates & Smita whom he loves. Smita Patil maintained the dignity of her character to the expected level. My God what a natural expressions she carried!!! Shafi Inamdar was truly a discovery for me & he's a brilliant character actor if given a chance & here in some of the scenes he outsmarted even Om. The movie is also a debut of a promising villain on Indian screen- Sadashiv Amrapurkar as 'Rama Shetty'. It's another story that he didn't get such a meaty role & almost forgotten today as one of the loud villain of Dharmendra's B grade action films. Watch the scene where Om 1st time becomes a rebel for his father (played by Amrish Puri) & next both are sharing wine together. How inner truth started revealing for both the character with confronting feelings of love & hate for each other. Two faces of Indian Police Force- Masculinity & Impotency and in between lies- half truth (ardh satya)…Kudos to Nihalani's touch. The film won 2 National Awards as Best Hindi Feature Film & Best Actor- Om Puri & 3 Filmfare Awards in Best Film, Best Director & Best Supporting Actor Categories.

Recommended to all who are interested in nostalgia of serious Hindi films.

Ratings- 8/10@@@1 +Zombie Nation 2004 R

Hey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.

Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.

This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.

1/10@@@0 +After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.

SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.

There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.

In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film "Drohkaal". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence.@@@1 +Yeah, I'm sure it really could be a nation . . . if four of them all stood at the four corners of the world and the other two cloned themselves a few billion times. Man, I am REALLY glad that I saw this movie on FEAR.net instead of renting it. I'm a big fan of the George Romero movies and I'm pretty sure that if he saw this movie, he'd probably throw up while laughing too hard. I mean, what was with the raccoon girls posing as zombies and walking around like Charlie's Devils? It really helped too that the music composer chose the crappy fashion show music for when the zombies walked up to their killer, especially the part where they go into the warehouse posing as the furniture shop/police station/apartment/flat/whatever room it was with the gong in the background, and the live woman was arguing about the closed furniture shop. I couldn't even tell what nationality the killer was, and the fact that his accent indicated some multiple nations didn't help either. Oh well, what can I expect from a movie where they throw in a random fight scene for no good reason in a warehouse where they apparently ship boxes of air around the world. So, for all of those who worship Mystery Science Theater 3000 or if you just like reaming on bad C movies (C for Craptastic), then this is the movie for you . . . or not.@@@0 +"Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.

The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.

Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.

The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.

The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.

The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.

Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly.@@@1 +Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of "Land of the Dead".

Boy, was I wrong.

It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.

We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.

Some people actually consider this a "so bad, it's good" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.

This is even worse than "Zombiez" DO NOT WATCH!@@@0 +An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.

Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.

This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !!

After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade.

This movie was a moderate box office hit.

A must-see for discerning movie fans.@@@1 +German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.

Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.

The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.

The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.

The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.

Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.

More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.

After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.

At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.

Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.

I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.@@@0 +Govind Nihalani's directorial venture of Vijay Tendulkar's novel is brilliant. Om Puri plays an inspector Velankar who is forced to protect underworld don rama shetty, played brilliantly by sadahiv amrapurkar. This is Govind Nihlan's Most talked about movie. This is a very good and a classic film. Smita Patil plays the female lead opposite Om Puri. Naseeruddin Shah is brilliant in a cameo role. Although Sadashiv Amrapurkar has only 4 scenes in the movie he dominates the movie. This was Sadashiv Amrapurkars acting debut.Om Puri won a national award for this film for the best actor. Filmfare award winner for Best Film,Story,Supporting Actor(Sadashiv Amrapurkar).@@@1 +BTK Killer, Green River Killer, Zodiac Killer; the man keeps putting out absolute garbage and the ironic thing is, he loves his crap.

I've never seen a Ulli Lommel film but I was so amazed on how everyone thinks his stuff is so awful. Like the movies I said in the beginning don't even equal a six when added together! After reading the comments I was curious to see how bad this guy really is. He is the worst out there.

The credits wouldn't end as the pathetic movie started and quickly I noticed that the audio was incredibly badly dubbed in. The acting was incredibly awful and same to the camera shots. The editing is easily the worst. This movie made no sense and I unbearably couldn't take it anymore as it wouldn't end and I was only 45 minutes in the movie. I couldn't take it anymore. I wasted 45 minutes of my life.

DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP!@@@0 +I love this show!

Every time i watch an episode i repeat that line and remind myself how good of a show this is. I am a huge sci-fi fan and this show has grounds to be the most important science (fiction?) show in the history of film/TV. There are so many theories in this show about the universe i could start a religion. Its amazing, season after season the show gets better and better.

I've been a fan of MacGyver since i was 5 (19 now) and i find it so ironic that my 2 favorite TV shows of all time star Richard Dean Anderson. Its also interesting how each character is practically the opposite of the other.

Back when i first saw Stargate the movie, i instantly liked it and considered it one of my favorite sci-fi flicks, then hearing a TV show would spin from it i got really excited, but didn't get showtime till the fifth season was almost over.

Though, I'm disappointed to hear that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wanted to do a trilogy of movies but the studio optioned the series instead.

Id say though that it turned out just fine. Maybe even better.

This show is amazing, and i hope it never dies. Atlantis here we come!@@@1 +I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.

Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.

Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.

Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.

About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.@@@0 +Any story comprises a premise, characters and conflict. Characters plotting their own play promises triumph, and a militant character readily lends oneself to this. Ardh Satya's premise is summarized by the poem of the same name scripted by Dilip Chitre. The line goes - "ek palde mein napunsaktha, doosre palde mein paurush, aur teek tarazu ke kaante par, ardh satya ?". A rough translation - "The delicate balance of right & wrong ( commonly seen on the busts of blind justice in the courts ) has powerlessness on one plate and prowess on another. Is the needle on the center a half-truth ? "

The poem is recited midway in the film by Smita Patil to Om Puri at a resturant. It makes a deep impact on the protagonist & lays the foundation for much of the later events that follow. At the end of the film, Om Puri ends up in exactly the same situation described so aptly in the poem.

The film tries mighty hard to do a one-up on the poem. However, Chitre's words are too powerful, and at best, the film matches up to the poem in every aspect.

@@@1 +This movie was by far the worst movie that I have ever seen in my entire life. I'm not even kidding. It was poorly made and the actors couldn't act. It was a waste of my time and money. It looked like a movie that my friends and I could have put together on our own. The case the movie came in is definitely a disguise. Nothing in the movie looks like the zombie on the front of the case. It appears that the director or make-up artist has just put black eye liner under someones eyes an called them a zombie. The credits at the beginning of the movie take up almost 20 minutes of the movie. Which watching the credits was the best part of the movie. This was honestly an awful movie and I couldn't believe how badly it was put together. Scenes jumped from one thing to the other and sometimes u were like "whats going on?" The audio was awful and the action shots looked like a couple of teen's joking around making a fake fight scene.

IF you are considering renting or buying this movie I would advise you to at least watch the trailer for it because it show's how awful it truly is. I wish i would have watched it before i rented it.@@@0 +The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart.@@@1 +Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.@@@0 +I originally caught this back in 1996 in its one week run at a movie theatre. I was under impressed by it and my feelings haven't much changed.

Documentary about the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. covering his life and movies. There are interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. They include: Vampira, Dolores Fuller, Bela Lugosi Jr., Loretta King, Gregory Walcott and Paul Marco. Interviews are mixed with clips from the movies or some bizarre recreations. It is interesting (somewhat) but was this really needed? I've seen all of Wood's films and they're just terrible. Wood had ambitions but not a bit of talent to carry them out. I wouldn't say he was the worst director ever but he's down there. Do we really need a docu on a very mediocre film maker? I do like the fact that they didn't try to make Wood out to be some sort of saint. More than a few of those interviewed (especially Lugosi Jr.) pretty much hated the man and it comes through loud and clear. Also they totally ignore his films in the adult film industry in the 1960s and 70s. Still it's of interest if you're a Wood fan. The best interviews are with Vampira (who tears Wood apart) and Dolores Fuller (a long time girlfriend).@@@1 +Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen – in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.

The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe?

I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever – this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.

Seriously – I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.@@@0 +I loved this film. Not being a swooning Ed Wood Jr. fan, I prefer to appreciate his "boundless enthusiasm" and acknowledge his shortcomings. His movies are fun, but his personal story is one racked with pain. I hoped, and was delighted to find, that this film would be about understanding his turbulent life, rather than simply heaping him with posthumous praise. From beginning to end, this film evolves from a documentary into a mythology, leaving the cast and the viewer unexpectedly connected to each other and to Ed Wood Jr.

What we get are people who knew Ed Wood the best talking about him from all perspectives, positive and negative, and showing us their character as much as Ed's. We get insight into Ed's personal and professional life: from his romances, to his drinking, to his sexuality, to his friends, to his enemies, and even to his film making.

The film itself is shot in a low-budget way that seems done out of respect for Ed, as if using the techniques of most theatrically released movies from 1996 would be disrespectful (sort of like wearing a nicer suit than the President). The set designer uses a sense of humor and also a great deal of insight when matching each cast member with their background.

Fans will be excited to hear personal testimony regarding Ed Wood controversies, and new comers will be amazed that this man was real. The DVD is full of impossible to find gems ("Crossroads of Lorado" and photo galleries), but the real treasure of this film is the surprisingly engaging and interconnected story.

Ed Wood had a habit of defining people through their association with him (for better or worse), to the point where one woman will go down in history as "Swimming Pool Owner" for once letting him and his friends be baptized in her pool. This ability to define a person's legacy comes through universally, as the most amazing effect of the film is to not only give a well rounded idea of the man that was Ed Wood Jr., but also to give a comprehensive view of the community that he created. Somehow, without ever having more that one cast member being interviewed on screen at a time, the connection that Ed Wood created amongst the various people in his life becomes clear, and the viewer is left with great sense of involvement.

Even the title hints at the B-list horror genre, but by the end, we see that even this is a kindness. What begins as unrelated stories by random people ends with the conclusion that all of the cast will be forever weaved into an unpredictably cohesive fabric that history will bring into haunting unity with Wood's legend.

In many ways a living contradiction, Ed Wood Jr. could not be condensed to a single viewpoint. This collaborative effort is the closest to knowing him that we can ever get. Being itself a juxtaposition of themes, it is at once respectful, provocative, thoughtful, gripping, fun, sad, kind, and fulfilling.@@@1 +i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!@@@0 +"The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr." is the definitive documentary on the life of the man who brought us such movies as "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster", and, of course, "Plan 9 from Outer Space". This exquisite film far exceeds where other documentaries, such as "Look Back in Angora" and "The Plan 9 Companion", failed. It rounds up his surviving entourage, many of whom have passed away since filming, and gives an honest examination of Ed Wood and his work. Nostalgic in the fact that it looks back at the darker corner of yesteryear Hollywood, sentimental in its treatment of the director (down to the haunting music), this documentary is an absolute must-see for anyone who loves the director who so failed in his day. The entire two hours of the film lovingly and retrospectively pieces together Ed's life and untimely death for the viewer. Best watched at 3 am while wearing an angora sweater.@@@1 +This is one of the worst films ever. I like cheesy movies but this is simply awful. Where are the images in the film that are on the box? I think more money was spent on the DVD box illustrations than on the entire film.

Why would a company release a DVD that the cover is so misleading? I feel like such an idiot for renting this movie based strictly on the box. As much as I explore IMDb I should have done a little research and made a list prior to visiting my local video rental store. I have no one to blame except myself. I want my money and time back.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Even if curiosity is motivating you, stick cocktail umbrellas in your eyes instead. It will be much more enjoyable. You have been warned!@@@0 +This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.

Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is.@@@1 +I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.

It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say "raccoon eyes?"

I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting.@@@0 +An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.

Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film!@@@1 +I honestly want the last 30 minuets of my life back.

The only person that is fit to watch this movie is Helen Keller I kept saying to myself this has to get better this has to get better.

Then the zombies finally showed up and they had some raccoon paint on there eyes.

They talked like regular people.

One drove a car.

Some voodoo woman asked what one of the "Zombies" wanted and the " zombie" said ( I want to Dance)

( THAT WAS IT) Out came the movie I couldn't take it any longer Can I sue for a ½ hour of my life?????@@@0 +The story of a drifter, his sheep ranch boss, and the boss's daughter is not for all tastes, but it's still very intriguing. It takes place in the beautiful country of New Zealand, amongst the scenery we've come to know so well through other films from this region.

This movie was the first time I had ever seen the excellent Mary Regan, and I've been a fan of hers ever since. The cast also contains Bruno Lawrence, who is probably best remembered by American audiences from the film "Smash Palace". Terence Cooper takes a turn as the ranch owner who pays a little too much of the wrong sort of attention to his daughter (Regan).

Sharply acted, with unforgettably shattering performances from all of its leads. I first saw this movie in extremely edited form on late night television here in America, but believe you me, the unexpurgated version is not to be missed.@@@1 +Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.

This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.

I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.

If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. "DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT!@@@0 +I really like Miikes movies about Yakuza, this one I saw about 2 years ago and it really fu**ed my head. Never before seen such a sick and twisted thing. The Story is good and the actors do their thing very well. I haven't seen the UK or Japan version, but I have to say that I believe that the German DVD is a bit censored. If you haven't seen the movie already and live in Germany maybe you better look out for a DVD from the Nederlands or Austria. The I-ON DVD contains a lot of very hard and nasty scenes, but at the showdown I felt that something was missing, about one or two very short scenes.

All in all a good perverted movie with crazy characters and a high level of violence, that's what I like Miike for!!@@@1 +Acclaimed director Mervyn LeRoy puts drama on film that competes with the best of soap operas. High drama is found in the loves and infidelities in New York's social set. Oh yes, don't forget jealousy can bring about tainted hearts and murder. The all star cast features: Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin, James Mason, Ava Gardner, Cyd Charisse and Nancy Davis.@@@0 +Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list...@@@1 +The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.

Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.

I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.@@@0 +I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or "Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@@1 +LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.@@@0 +The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.

An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.

What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.

--PolarisDiB@@@1 +This Hitchcock movie bears little similarity to his later suspense films and seems much more like a very old fashioned morality tale. A young couple receives an inheritance that they believe will make them happy. They spend the money traveling about the world and living a very hedonistic existence. However, after a while the excitement begins to wane and the couple become dissipated and pointless in their existence. However, out of no where, when they are on a luxury cruise, the ship sinks and they lose everything--and end up much happier in the end because they now appreciate life! What an odd, silly and preachy film! Personally, I'd like to inherit all that money and find out if it makes me miserable!

The production values are relatively poor compared to later productions--a rough film with poor sound quality and rather amateurish acting.@@@0 +While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama.

The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.

A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.

7 or 8 out of 10.@@@1 +Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.

*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph@@@0 +I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one.@@@1 +Yet another early film from Alfred Hitchcock which seems to have been done out of contractual obligation. As with Juno and the Paycock, you can tell that Hitchcock had little interest in this movie. There is almost no style or craft to it at all. The story revolves around Fred and Emily, a young married couple, who come into some money and go on a cruise which proves to be a test of their marriage. Emily is given a chance at a new life with a good hearted, wealthy man who falls in love with her, but chooses to take the high road and stay with her husband. This might seem more believable if Fred weren't made out to be a completely insensitive, pompous ass who jumps at the first opportunity he sees to leave his wife for another woman. The couple ends up staying together, but the movie lacks any real reconciliation scene. The third act goes in a completely different direction, with the couple stranded on an abandoned ship and rescued by an Asian fishing boat. Joan Barry does give a very stirring performance as the faithful wife of an unfaithful husband. That's about all you can say for this one.@@@0 +Shinjuku Triad Society: Chinese Mafia Wars is unlikely to get distribution in the West outside film festivals. Why? Could your censors stomach a film where policemen anally rape male and female suspects to get them to talk (and the victims enjoy it) or see an old lady have her eye torn out of her skull? These are just a few of the shocks in store for viewers of this ultraviolent cops and gangsters story. It makes Clockwork Orange which was banned for years in the UK look like a Disney cartoon.

Should you see this film? YES It is fantastic and essential viewing for fans of Asian cinema. The shocking moments are there to illustrate what goers on in the world of these characters. If you like this make sure you catch Dead or Alive which is very similar (barring the insane ending in DOA of course). Great for Japan that they have a talent like Miike working at the same time as Takeshi Kitano. The best chance of seeing this film outside a Takashi Miike retrospective at a film festival is on DVD. If I haven't put you off try hunting for a Hong Kong version on the web as I'm sure it will come out in that country.@@@1 +I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.

Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.

Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.

The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."

When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.

Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.

Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.

Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.

At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers.@@@0 +Shinjuku Triad Society, albeit from perfect, is a fiercely compelling film for what it tries to depict in its uber-conventional realm. It's a yakuza/triad picture, involving cops versus Japanese &/or Chinese gangsters (mostly Chinese, as the title suggests), but already even in his first technical 'debut', Takashi Miike is already establishing many aspects to films that he would make from here-on in. Social issues like black market trading of precious goods, in this case human organs usually from children; nostalgia for childhood and one's roots, which was especially prevalent in Dead or Alive 2; thumbing-of-the-nose at taboos like gay sex and (satirical) rape/violence towards women; blood-curdling violence. It's certainly not as surreal as some of Miike's most recent films, but this is expected as he's trying out things that he's just starting to learn, following a track record of straight to video programmers. It's got all of those qualities, and it's also, like the films that would follow from it, equally savage and heartfelt, crazy (in spots) and sardonic in its drama, and solid for genre fans.

The story concerns two brothers, one a Chinese orphan raised in Japan, Tatsuhito Kiriya (Kippei Shiina, pretty decent as a Eastwood-esquire anti-hero/hero), who's become a detective, and another, who's become a gangster, or a would-be one. The main arch likely takeover gang comes from Wang (a definite pun on what the gang represents during its spare-time, played by Tomorowo Taguchi as a typical wacko with real terror in his eyes), and his partner Karino (Takeshi Caesar, who's threatening even when just repeating a commandment over and over to a woman who's just had her eye plugged out following a sour deal), who are the ruthless kind to pop up almost organically in a Miike movie. There's some intrigue involving the organ-trading scheme with the gangsters, which Kiriya almost becomes a victim of, and the gang's penchant for gay sex- at least with one little puppet of sorts who does whatever the main gangsters want. It all leads up to vengeance and redemption, qualities that Miike and his writer are trying to emulate from Shakespeare (hence the Macbeth bit with Wang washing his bloody hangs over and over after some gay sex saying "it won't come off").

If it doesn't add up to the same emotional level of impact that a great Shakespeare play would have, it's par for the course of a film like this. Miike's goals are met, though just met, in his low-scale ambitions: a gangster picture with some added levels of harsh familial trouble (the main tension between the brothers comes out of profession and duty to parents), notes on the crueler aspects of underworld crime, and what the realm of unrepentant sex, with both sexes, brings out psychologically in the characters. At the same time, Shinjuku Triad Society also contains more than a few moments of classic biting black-comedy from the Miike oeuvre. Some of it just has to be taken with a grain of salt for what the director does in his outrageousness, like the bit at the beginning with the chair smashing over the face, or the randomness of the "interrogation" as it goes into a very twisted area. There's even a laugh-out-loud line from the young sex-slave after finishing an act on one of the bosses: "Thank you, Mr. Weeny-Burger." Miike and his writer don't have enough here to make the film a full-on dark comedy like Ichi or, of course, Visitor Q, but there's enough to bring some appropriate levity to the darker aspects to the story and characters.

As the first entry of the "Black Society" trilogy, as it's called, I was quite impressed, and it's a fine quasi-calling card from one of the craziest new artists in contemporary cinema.@@@1 +there is no suspense in this serial! When one episode ends the acting is so shoddy, the effects are so poor and the script is so awful that the last thing on your mind is how Batman and Robin will save the day. No, in fact, the last thing on your mind is watching the next episode! This show is so boring that I can't see how it ever got made, let alone released on DVD! Obviously the effects are not up to par with contemporary Batman films, but even the script is awful. An incoherent babbling mess about some evil professor and a ray gun or something like that, I am not quite sure, because it is too awful to follow. Watch the 60s version, or the 90's versions, or even Batman Begins, just anything over this version!@@@0 +This movie is the first of Miikes triad society trilogy, and the trilogy kicks of to a great start. The movies in the trilogy are only connected thematically, and these themes are actually apparent in all his films, if you look close enough. Shinjuku Triad Society is about a cop trying to prevent his kid brother from getting too involved with a rather extreme gang of outsiders, struggling their way to the top of Tokyos yakuza. The kid brother is a lawyer, and the triad gang is becoming increasingly in need of one, as the movie progresses. The movie takes place in a very harsh environment, and is therefore pretty violent and tough. Miike has done worse, but since this is a serious movie it hits you very hard. As usual there is also a lot of perverted sex, mostly homosexual in this one. The movie is in many ways a typical gangster movie, but with a great drive and true grittiness. If you've only seen Miikes far-out movies (Ichi the killer, Fudoh etc.) this is worth checking out since it is sort of a compromise between his aggressive over-the-top style displayed in those movies and his more serious side, as seen in the other films of the trilogy. And as always with Miike, there are at least two scenes in this that you'll NEVER forget (see it and figure out which ones for yourself).

8/10@@@1 +...this would have been what you got.

Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.

Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.

Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.

The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.

Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.

In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!

In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.

There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.

Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.@@@0 +A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film.

As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past.

I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out.@@@1 +Granting the budget and time constraints of serial production, BATMAN AND ROBIN nonetheless earns a place near the bottom of any "cliffhanger" list, utterly lacking the style, imagination, and atmosphere of its 1943 predecessor, BATMAN.

The producer, Sam Katzman, was known as "King of the Quickies" and, like his director, Spencer Bennett, seemed more concerned with speed and efficiency than with generating excitement. (Unfortunately, this team also produced the two Superman serials, starring Kirk Alyn, with their tacky flying animation, canned music, and dull supporting players.) The opening of each chapter offers a taste of things to come: thoroughly inane titles ("Robin Rescues Batman," "Batman vs Wizard"), mechanical music droning on, and our two heroes stumbling toward the camera looking all around, either confused or having trouble seeing through their cheap Halloween masks. Batman's cowl, with its devil's horns and eagle's beak, fits so poorly that the stuntman has to adjust it during the fight scenes. His "utility belt" is a crumpled strip of cloth with no compartments, from which he still manages to pull a blowtorch and an oxygen tube at critical moments!

In any case, the lead players are miscast. Robert Lowery displays little charm or individual flair as Bruce Wayne, and does not cut a particularly dynamic figure as Batman. He creates the impression that he'd rather be somewhere, anywhere else! John Duncan, as Robin, has considerable difficulty handling his limited dialogue. He is too old for the part, with an even older stuntman filling in for him. Out of costume, Lowery and Duncan are as exciting as tired businessmen ambling out for a drink, without one ounce of the chemistry evident between Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft in the 1943 serial.

Although serials were not known for character development, the earlier BATMAN managed to present a more energetic cast. This one offers a group going through the motions, not that the filmmakers provide much support. Not one of the hoodlums stands out, and they are led by one of the most boring villains ever, "The Wizard." (Great name!) Actually, they are led by someone sporting a curtain, a shawl, and a sack over his head, with a dubbed voice that desperately tries to sound menacing. The "prime suspects" -- an eccentric professor, a radio broadcaster -- are simply annoying.

Even the established comic book "regulars" are superfluous. It is hard to discern much romance between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne. Despite the perils she faces, Vicki displays virtually no emotion. Commissioner Gordon is none-too-bright. Unlike in the previous serial, Alfred the butler is a mere walk-on whose most important line is "Mr Wayne's residence." They are props for a drawn-out, gimmick-laden, incoherent plot, further saddled with uninspired, repetitive music and amateurish production design. The Wayne Manor exterior resembles a suburban middle-class home in any sitcom, the interiors those of a cheap roadside motel. The Batcave is an office desperately in need of refurbishing. (The costumes are kept rolled up in a filing cabinet!)

Pity that the filmmakers couldn't invest more effort into creating a thrilling adventure. While the availability of the two serials on DVD is a plus for any serious "Batfan," one should not be fooled by the excellent illustrations on the box. They capture more of the authentic mood of the comic book than all 15 chapters of BATMAN AND ROBIN combined.

Now for the good news -- this is not the 1997 version!@@@0 +This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!@@@1 +This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick@@@0 +Here it is.. the first EVER episode of Friends, Where we get introduced to Control Freak Monica Gellar (Courtney Cox), Newly divorced Ross Gellar (David Schimmer), Hippy Pheobe Buffay (Lisa Kudrow), unknown actor and ladies man (Matt Le Blanc and very sarcastic Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry). This is how the scene starts off until we introduced to the 6th and final friend Spoilt kid Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston).

The Episode is better than most people give credit for, like any new sitcom the first episode isn't always fantastic. The acting in this episode isn't great because the cast cannot identify and arnt really believable in their new characters (apart from Kudrow and Perry- who shine).

Matt Le Blanc- Man, his acting was down right dreadful because until later, he gets more confident, but i think he tries to be funny but at most fails.

David Schimmer- Why does he over pronounce EVERY word? he cannot speak normally! but he became one of the funniest characters in later seasons, but he isn't confident. and i cannot sympathise with him Jennifer Aniston- Looks hot, and does a good job as Rachel Green, but we only see the real Rachel later in the 1st season, Courtney Cox- Looks quite anorexic in this episode, its worrying, she looks totally different now, (more healthily), she acting is a little sketchy but everyones is in this 20 minute pilot! Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry- I'm doing these two together because their comic timing and acting quality was superb, and for Lisa this was one of her first roles and she is so natural as Pheobe (Pheebs) and Matthew Perry is just Matthew Perry playing himself basically! The episode quality does improve later,,, such as the Sets, they looks dark and creepy in this episode and makes them seem unfriendly, the acting is OK, the characters gain confidence with each new scene and i am proud this is the pilot! I hope we see the Friends reunite! cause they will always be there for us!@@@1 +he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie .@@@0 +And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!@@@1 +I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.@@@0 +Stargate SG-1 is a spin off of sorts from the 1994 movie "Stargate." I am so glad that they decided to expand on the subject. The show gets it rolling from the very first episode, a retired Jack O'Neill has to go through the gate once more to meet with his old companion, Dr. Daniel Jackson. Through the first two episodes, we meet Samantha Carter, a very intelligent individual who lets no one walk over her, and there is Teal'c, a quiet, compassionate warrior who defies his false god and joins the team.

The main bad guys are called the Gouald, they are parasites who can get inserted into one's brain, thus controlling them and doing evil deeds. Any Gouald who has a massive amount of power is often deemed as a "System Lord." The warriors behind the Gouald are called Jaffa, who house the parasitic Gouald in their bodies until the Gouald can get inserted in a person's brain.

Through the episodes, we mostly get to see SG-1, the exploratory team comprised of Jack/Daniel/Teal'c/and Sam, go through the wormhole that instantly transports them to other planets (this device is called the Stargate) and they encounter new cultures or bad guys. Some episodes are on-world, meaning that they do not go through the Stargate once in the episode and rather deal with pressing issues on Earth.

Through the years, you start to see a decline in the SG-1 team as close knit, and more character-building story lines. This, in turn means even more on-world episodes, which is perfectly understandable.

My rating: 8.75/10----While most of this show is good, there are some instances of story lines not always getting wrapped up and less of an emphasis on gate travel these last few years. But still, top notch science fiction!@@@1 +How can there be that many corrupt cops without any one of them slipping up? With enough cops to run a mini-war that include such weapons as flamethrowers, you would think they would have been caught before someone writing for a weekly coupon newspaper overheard someone saying 'thanks' to a corrupt cop.

You will never get your 90ish minutes back. Life is too precious to rent this movie.

I feel bad for the big named actors that made the mistake of making this movie.

If you like Justin Timberlake, feel free to rent this movie. He does have a very major part in it, so fans might enjoy seeing him.

However, I believe most of his fans are young girls, who may be turned off by the violence in this movie.@@@0 +The pilot is extremely well done. It lays out how the characters bond in future episodes. I don't think anyone could have created a better pilot for this show. It displays remarkable creativity on the writers part. Although not everything was straightened out because it was the very first episode, a lot of events that happen in future seasons were demonstrated in the pilot. An example would be Ross and Rachels future relationship. Even though the nervousness of a first episode appeared, it was overcome by an amazing plot and outstanding cast choice.

Bravo.

A great start to an unbeatable comedy!@@@1 +I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.@@@0 +In the very first episode of Friends, which aired 22 Sept 1994 "The One Where Monica Gets A Roommate" there is a song playing as Rachel sits in the window towards the end of the show, the line that plays is: "If you ever need holding".... does anyone know the artist singing or the title of the song? It is seems as if it is a great song....I would love to get a copy of it. Thanks for the assistance. I am looking for the album/cd it is on so I can purchase it.

I have the shows which are available for purchase and enjoy this show over and over again. It just seemed to be believable...thanks for the hours of entertainment you have provided over the years.@@@1 +Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.

It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.

It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.@@@0 +In this first episode of Friends, we are introduced to the 6 main characters of the series: Monica Geller,Phoebe Buffay,Chandler Bing,Ross Geller, Joey Tribbiani and eventually Rachel Green .

We discover that Rachel, a rich girl that is Monica's friend from high school times, left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar, since she discovered she didn't love him. She also decides to live with Monica and become independent from her father,getting a new job as a waitress in Central Perk.

Ross, for the other hand,discovered his wife is a lesbian and lost her for Susan, her partner. (We see him moving to a new apartment during the episode)

Monica, in this episode, makes out (and eventually sleeps) with Paul "the wine guy", who gave her the excuse of being impotent since he divorced his wife. But in reality, he was just deceiving her.

Ps: I just loooove Joey's and Chandler's haircuts in this first season! =)@@@1 +STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.

I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.

Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.

Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.)

This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *@@@0 +Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.

It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.

I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre.

6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par !@@@1 +Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.

The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.

The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.

Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.

Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.@@@0 +Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...

This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.

Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...

Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.

Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.@@@1 +Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.@@@0 +What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.

Spoilers here:

Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.

End of Spoiler.

As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.@@@1 +I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.@@@0 +This is one of the best episode from the second season of MOH, I think Mick Garris has a problem with women... He kill'em all, they are often the victims (Screwfly solution, Pro-life, Valerie on the stairs, I don't remember the Argento's episode in season 1, etc., obviously Imprint). I think he enjoys to watch women been burn, torture, mutilated and I don't know. Never least "Right to die" is one of the best, with good turns and graphic scenes and suspense (specially with the photos from the cell scene, wonderful). The acting is like the entire series, regular I could be worst like "Pro-life" or "We scream for Ice cream". Also I think the plot it could be made for a movie and not just for an episode. The ideology of the series is horrible, killing and terminating women, mutilating animals and on and on... the first season it was better than the second one with episodes like "Cigarrette burns" (The best of all), "Homecoming" (The most funny), "Imprint" (really shocking).@@@1 +Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!@@@0 +I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.

The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.@@@1 +First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers.

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two.

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...@@@0 +Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.@@@1 +Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.@@@0 +A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.

This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.

The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".

Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.

While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3!@@@1 +You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)@@@0 +Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients.@@@1 +If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.

The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.

By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.@@@0 +Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.

Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.

Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.)

But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.

And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)

Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply.@@@1 +This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.@@@0 +I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.

The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.

I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.

Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future.@@@1 +Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).@@@0 +Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.@@@1 +Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?@@@0 +This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure.@@@1 +FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****@@@0 +But the fun is in the journey.

I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.

The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.

Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry...@@@1 +As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.@@@0 +This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.@@@1 +Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.@@@0 +As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.@@@1 +'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10@@@0 +Does anyone know the exact quote about "time and love" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul!

I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship.

Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years.

He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.

This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.

I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.

Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE.

Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks!@@@1 +I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????@@@0 +I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.

But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.

Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders."

The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).

Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.

I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.@@@1 +Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.

Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **@@@0 +A sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths as they prepare for their weddings. The ex-cop writer and the public school teacher fall for each other in this great new york setting, even though they are marrying other people. Maybe a little trite in that the "partners" are both type A personalities, while our protagonists are much more relaxed. Not anything heavy, but it made me smile. And hey for the guys - sell the Natasha Henstridge angle, and the gals - sell them the sappy romance, everyone wins!@@@1 +I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .@@@0 +It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.@@@1 +Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.

LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.

Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.

Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".

Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.@@@0 +Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.

Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.

It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.

I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.@@@1 +Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.@@@0 +A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch.@@@1 +It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.@@@0 +I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.

Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.

Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.

Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.

God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.

This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too.@@@1 +Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.@@@0 +I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw "You've got mail" I thought "It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.

It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend!@@@1 +SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).@@@0 +This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.@@@1 +how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.

rating:0.3@@@0 +I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.

There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...

Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.

(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)@@@1 +I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.

OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.

As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.

I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.@@@0 +This great movie has failed to register a higher rating than 5!Why not!It is a great portrayal of the life of Christ without the ruthless sensationalism of The Passion of The Christ.Johnny Cash did great things for God which amazingly are shunned and neglected in areas where they should matter most,like our churches.The film itself took less than a month to film as Johnny felt the strong presence of God guiding him through it.Great credit to everyone involved in this overwhelmingly sincere movie which will always be cherished by its fans.At least the Billy Graham crusade rated it highly enough to use it as a prime source of education for new Christians.Thanks Fox for producing it.As Walk the Line proved that it was freakish that this man survived yet alone produced such an underrated masterpiece.Movies are not canonized through popular vote as this production proves! In summary I believe that this film is one of the worlds great documentaries as it is forthright, honestly portrayed and a great witness to the Christian faith!@@@1 +Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.@@@0 +This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.@@@1 +Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.@@@0 +Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.

But....

1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.

I'd love to buy the CD.

Tom Paine Texas, USA@@@1 +i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.

that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.

nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.

i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.

however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.

great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.

whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.@@@0 +There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that

1/Jesus was blond,

2/the last supper was a huge meal,

3/ he liked playing with the children,

4/His death was for all people and for all time.

The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons.@@@1 +More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.

It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.

"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.

A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy.

But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.

Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!

Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.

The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.@@@0 +I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool.@@@1 +Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.

I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.@@@0 +I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well.

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out.@@@1 +A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.@@@0 +I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting.

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this.

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence.@@@1 +I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.@@@0 +Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs.@@@1 +This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.

Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.

Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.

Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.@@@0 +This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.

I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.

Jason Bigg's character was the best though.

Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.

This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.

This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.

Good job in writing.@@@1 +When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.@@@0 +This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.@@@1 +I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.@@@0 +Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.@@@1 +San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better!

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.@@@0 +I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").

The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.

In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.@@@1 +If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.@@@0 +i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.

overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.

overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.@@@1 +This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.@@@0 +Look it's Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd in a movie about a dead girlfriend haunting the new girlfriend. It's Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives and the guy who wore "sex Panther cologne" in Anchorman. If you are expecting a Golden Globe nominated movie then you need to rethink how you look at movies. However, if you are willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and want to watch a funny movie then you've come to the right place. The characters are all funny. They work together very well. The real match up is Paul Rudd and Lake Bell. He's as funny as he was on Friends and she was funny and good looking all at the same time. I went with my wife, she enjoyed it and so did I.@@@1 +Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.@@@0 +Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.@@@1 +It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)@@@0 +I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation@@@1 +The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4.

I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.@@@0 +In complete contrast to the opinions of the other review, this film actually was surprisingly good! I reluctantly went to see it and expected to be bored by clichés, obvious jokes and overacting, all of which the trailer had promised.

However, after 5 minutes in I found myself genuinely laughing and enjoying the refreshing acting. With only one 'toilet humour' gag, Over Her Dead Body manages to actually come up with realistically funny scenarios and, without spoiling anything too much, some of the moments involving animals are hilarious.

The staple ingredients of a good film are all there; script, director and actors and compared some other recent attempts at romantic comedy, this film stands tall.

Sure, you aren't going to learn anything or have a spiritual awakening, but if you go with an open mind you will more than likely have a good time!@@@1 +The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.@@@0 +Once when I was in college and we had an international fair, the Russian section had a Soviet-era poster saying "Ne boltay!", meaning "Don't gossip!". I "translated" it for the "generation" of TV watchers as "Don't be Gladys Kravitz!" (in reference to the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched").

However, when you see the result of gossip in the Pvt. Snafu short "Rumors", you see that it's not quite a laughing matter. In this case, the perpetually witless soldier overhears something about bombing and immediately assumes that the Axis Powers have attacked the United States. So, he tells it to someone, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and it continues. As in "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming", the story gets blown more and more out of proportion each time, so that when it gets back to Snafu...well, you know what I mean! Yes, it's mostly WWII propaganda - complete with a derogatory term for the Japanese - but I have to say that the Pvt. Snafu shorts were actually quite funny. Of course, since they had Dr. Seuss writing and Mel Blanc providing the voices, it's no surprise that these came out rather cool. Worth seeing.@@@1 +Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".@@@0 +Friz Freleng's 'Rumours' is an excellent Private Snafu cartoon that warns against spreading panic-inducing rumours during wartime. Produced, as were all the Snafu shorts, to be shown to military audiences as entertaining instructional films, 'Rumours' is extremely imaginative and crams tons of ideas into its very brief lifespan. When Snafu starts a rumour about a bombing, it escalates into an eventual rumour that America has lost the war. This is illustrated brilliantly by way of a long, rubbery piece of baloney and several strange, fictional creatures who come back to haunt Snafu with ever more terrible news about his country's military. 'Rumours' is inventive, fast paced and funny, all of which help to overshadow the rather laboured, "don't badmouth the military" message. It stands up as one of the best of the Private Snafu shorts.@@@1 +When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.

I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.@@@0 +RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.

As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.

This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.@@@1 +No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.@@@0 +This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time@@@1 +I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.

I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation.

None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.@@@0 +Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 +Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.

Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.

Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?

Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period."

Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.

Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.

Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.

In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.

Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.@@@0 +Tim Krabbe is the praised author of 'Het Gouden Ei', a novel that was put on the screen twice ('Spoorloos' and 'The Vanishing'). One of the Dutch writer's more recent works is 'De Grot', a psychological thriller about two totally different men, Egon and Axel, who meet at a youth camp and, surprising enough, become friends for dear life. Egon is a quiet, somewhat dull person, who spends his time studying and writing geography books. Axel, on the other hand, is a charismatic 'party-animal', a heavy drinking criminal whose everyday's concern is to get a woman into his bedroom. From the moment they meet, Axel has a strong influence on Egon, while the latter envies him because he has a good life without really doing anything (such as reading thick books like Egon); ultimately, Egon is even dragged by Egon into illegal practices himself, which leads to a fatal drug transport in a distant Asian country.

After having read the book last year, I was surprised the critics were quite positive about it. In my opinion, the book suffers especially from the complex structure. While Krabbe presents the story as an absorbing portrait of an uncommon relationship between two people, the plot becomes more of a puzzle: the many episodes are not presented chronologically, so that two successive scenes are seldom in the same episode. Because of this, the story feels surprisingly remote: you often need to know a character's background to really care for him or her. Another complaint was the fact that the main characters, Egon and Axel, are a little stereotypical. Egon IS 'the' dull intellectual, while Axel IS his exact opposite. In real life, such one-dimensional people rarely exist; in books and films, they always seem to be there, taking away a lot of credibility.

Despite all this, the film was a pleasant surprise, being much better than the book. The adaptation excels in its beautiful cinematography, humour and acting: Fedja van Huet (Egon) is one of the few Dutch actors who can make you forget he IS acting (which is, in my opinion, the highest an actor can achieve). The drawbacks of the film, however, are the same as the book's: mainly because the characters are one-dimensional, they are so predictable that it becomes annoying. Guess who wrote the script? Indeed, Krabbe himself. It is obvious that this talented director (that's what the movie makes clear anyway) is hampered by a deficient screenplay. Perhaps Koolhoven should just have chosen a better book.

7/10@@@1 +MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½*

Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence)

By Blake French:

Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said.

This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny.

How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?

The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.

"Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money.

So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.

@@@0 +'De Grot' is a terrific Dutch thriller, based on the book written by Tim Krabbé. Another of his books, 'Het Gouden Ei' was made into the great Dutch mystery thriller called 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing') in 1988. This one is not as good as that thriller (although much better than the American remake also called 'The Vanishing') but there are times it comes close.

Especially the opening moments are terrific. We see a man, later we learn his name is Egon Wagter (Fedja van Huêt), coming from a plane in Thailand. When he picks up his bags it is pretty clear that he is smuggling something across the border. These scenes are perfectly directed, photographed and acted. A kind of suspense is created that you would normally not have in an opening scene like this. Later we see how Egon makes his deal in Thailand with a woman, both stating that they have never done anything like this.

From this point the movie is constantly flashback and flash-forward. We see how Egon, still as a child (here played by Erik van der Horst), befriends a guy named Axel (as a kid played by Benja Bruijning). We learn how they grew up as friends, sort of, and how Axel (as an adult played by Marcel Hensema) became a criminal. Egon in the meanwhile goes to college and settles with a woman. Around this time he sometimes meets Axel but does not really want anything to do with him.

The movie is chronological in a way. It shows Egon and Axel as kids, than as students, young adults, and in their mid-thirties. But from time to time, like I said, the movie goes back to when they were kids and jumps forward again. Every time we see them as kids it explains something that happens when they are adults.

Minor spoilers herein.

The title means 'The Cave', and it is the cave that gives the movie its happy ending, although it is in fact not that happy. Like the beginning, the ending is terrific. The middle part of the movie is entertaining and in a way it distracts our attention of the first scenes, only to come back at that point in the end. It is the editing that gives the movie its happy ending, although we can say the dramatic ending is happy in a way as well.@@@1 +This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!@@@0 +Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 +How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.@@@0 +De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation).@@@1 +This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 +I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.

But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.

Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.

And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.@@@1 +Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.@@@0 +Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like "Laggan" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. "Devdas", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit "Bollywood" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words "defending his Village" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for "Bollywood". All said and done this is one good Movie.@@@1 +This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 +I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as "Love's a bitch!") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it.@@@1 +This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player "downtown" to hit a home run, clearly "downtown" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.@@@0 +good movie, good music, good background and an acceptable plot. but the main point again as his movies tend to be, the man is the best actor in idia and can turn dust into gold. nana patekar. this may be his second best performance after parinda( others may disagree). although other movies are not far behind. one man that will never ever disappoint you.

good movie although i think shahrukh was a luxury this movie could have done without. you can see in his movies, others try very hard to reach his heights and act out of their skins. but this man is really something elase.

the movie is cool, the music and direction is excellent plot a bit thin but the screen play and dialog again very good. a must watch.@@@1 +Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.

@@@0 +This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up!@@@1 +This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.

The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!@@@0 +A strong woman oriented subject after long, director Krishna Vamsi's Shakti- The Power, the Desi version of the Hollywood hit Not Without My Daughter is actress Sridevi's first home-production. A story about a woman's fight against harsh injustice.

The story of the film revolves around Nandini (Karisma Kapoor) who lives in Canada with her two uncles (Tiku Talsania, Jaspal Bhatti). There she meets Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), falls in love with him and they soon marry. Their family is complete when Nandini has a boy, Raja (Master Jai Gidwani). But their happiness is short lived, as the news of Shekhar's ailing mother (Deepti Naval)makes them leave their perfect life in Canada and come to India. And that's when the problems start. From the moment they reach

India, both are shocked to see the pollution and the vast throngs of people everywhere. They take a crowded train to reach Shekhar's village and when they finally reach the station, they have to catch a long bus drive to his village. The filthy sweaty bus combined with the uncertain terrain makes it a never-ending drive. And unfortunately for them, a frenzied mob that beat Shekhar out of shape for no fault of his attacks their bus. Fortunately, they get shot dead just in time before they can further harm him. After that, they drive to the handing Havel where Shekhar''s father, Narsimha (Nana Patekar) lives with his wife (Deepti Naval). Nandani realized that her father-in-law is in command as soon as she enters the place, but her only solace is her mother-in-law's warm welcome.

Living there, Nandini learns of her father-in-laws tyrannical behavior and realizes that ruthless killing is a way of life for him. The day she sees her father-in-law teach her son to throw a bomb, she loses it and lashes out against him, insisting to Shekhar that they move back to Canada. But terror strikes again when Shekhar is murdered one day, leaving a broken down Nandini alone with her son in this strange land where she is harrowed by a cruel father-in-law. Her fight against this man to save her son is what makes up the climax of this emotional heart-wrenching film.

What sets apart Shakti from most films being made off late is also the rural setting of the movie. The only drawback is Ismail Darbar''s music, which fails to rise above the script. The only saving grace is the sexy item number Ishq Kameena, which has been composed by Anu Malik. Another pat for the director comes because he has extracted some splendid performances from his cast. Karisma Kapoor is the life of the film and has given a moving performance as a helpless mother. She is sure to win awards for this heated portrayal. Second is actor Nana Patekar who is back with a bang with this film. His uncouth mannerisms suit him to the hilt and he's shown his versatility once again with this role. Sanjay Kapoor is the surprise packet of the film with a sincere and effective portrayal that stands up against both the other actors. Deepti Naval too is in top form and her Pr-climax showdown with Nana is praiseworthy. Shahrukh's cameo provides the lighter moments and surely he's been pulled in to get the required star value. Though his role was not really required, he's done it well. Overall, Shakti is a far superior film than most churned out these days and the Pr-release hype is sure to get it a good opening. Shakti is sure to get the critics and audience thumps up. So what if the film needs to be desperately trimmed by at least 2 reels to better the impact. Shakti still has the power to go on without a hitch!@@@1 +For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.@@@0 +Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!@@@1 +Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.@@@0 +Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done.@@@1 +Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?@@@0 +Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of "not without my Daughter"(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most "inspired" movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch.@@@1 +Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.@@@0 +The beauty of this film is evidenced in the great portrayal of the power of a mother's love, the exceptional performances, the steady execution and the quite innovative script. The film tells the story of an Indian woman, Nandini, who lives in Canada with her husband Shekhar and little kid Raja. All of a sudden her husband informs her that his family in India (of whom she had not even known) is in troubles and the couple rush to India. When they get into the village, Nanadini is shocked and terrified to witness a very wild rural culture; Shekhar's family, ruled by his cruel, highly cynical and merciless father Narasimha, lives a poor and highly violent lifestyle which is full of murder and terror and where women are subservient and helpless. Nandini starts nagging Shekhar to return home, but he is soon killed by his father's enemies. When she wants to leave, Narasimha refuses to let her take Raja back to India. Here starts the intense struggle which can be called "Nandini vs. Narasimha".

India is not presented in a particularly positive light in this film, but it only shows a very tiny minority of its rural areas, so it may be even correct. The portrayal is in my view fair and not one-sided because the positive side is also presented to an extent. Such a horrifying sight could be shown in a film about any country in the world. The locations are amazing, the music is wonderful, and Krishna Vamshi's direction is aided by very effective cinematography and good editing. One thing that must be noted is the very ear-pleasing background score by Ismail Darbar, it is beautiful. The characters are very well defined though we do get to see both their bright and dark sides in different portions of the film. Portrayed realistically throughout, the film flows well and is an interesting and fairly entertaining watch. Its dialogues are superb and intelligently written, and although the shocking proceedings can be very disturbing at some points, a great deal of positive moments manage to relieve the tension.

The film's biggest strength is the performances. Karisma Kapoor is breathtaking and very believable as Nandini. Her ability to strike a balance between vulnerability and unrestrained emotion is simply incredible. She displays so much intensity, impulsiveness, anguish and determination as the mother who wants to get her son back that this little kid seems to be her own son. Her outbreaks while facing off Nana Patekar which are like volcanic eruptions show us how the simplest of women can become a tigress when it comes to her child. After Fiza, this is her most powerful performance. One of the greatest actors Indian cinema has seen, Nana Patekar is indescribable as Narasimha. He manages to be hateful as Narasimha yet admirable as the actor who plays him. Patekar displays cruelty, wittiness and even humanity with total conviction. He is outstanding. Another great performance comes unsurprisingly from India's most underrated actress, Deepti Naval, who sensitises her character to perfection. Sanjay Kapoor is just adequate and Shahrukh Khan provides great comic relief. Anyway, do watch Shakti - it could have been better, but it is definitely a must-watch.@@@1 +This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.@@@0 +If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.

I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role.

One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.@@@1 +I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.

Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.@@@0 +The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.@@@1 +There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.

The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).

When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.@@@0 +Uneven Bollywood drama. Karisma Kapoor is excellent as an Indian woman in Canada who marries a friend (Sanjay Kapoor), has a child, and then visits his family in India only to find they are terrorist warlords. Drama and tragedy ensue, and the film becomes a kind of NOT WITHOUT MY BABY styled thriller. Film is compelling, its few song/dance numbers are uninteresting and needless, the gaity of Bollywood song and dance is really out of character for the intensity of this film's drama, at least once we've left the comforting confines of their Canadian love nest – although one number involving a cameo by the stunning Aishwarya Rai is enjoyably provocative, if ultimately misplaced as well. Likewise, the inclusion of Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky drifter who helps Kapoor in her escape from the clutches of the warlord turns what had been a very serious drama into a silly farce, and it only gets back on his feet when his character – and his fantasies about Rai that generate her cameo dance – are dispensed with. His throw-away comic-book dialog and the silliness of his fight scenes detract from the film's primary gripping drama. The cast is nicely supported by Nana Patekar as the warlord, and the elegant Deepti Naval who is outstanding as his long-suffering wife who finally choses to stand up against him in one of the film's best scenes; Ritu Shivpuri and Rajshree Solanki are also very good as Sanjay's sisters in India, and very pleasing eye candy. But Sanjay himself overacts terribly, especially during obvious ad-libs. The directorial style of writer/director Krishna Wamsi is sloppy, rampant with rough transitions and abrupt cuts, although his camera movement is good. The musical underscore is also quite effective, moody, featuring wordless female voice over a small orchestral ensemble (too bad little if any of that made it onto SHAKTI's soundtrack cd, but Bollywood hasn't yet discovered the value of including score along with songs on their soundtrack albums, at least not in most cases). But SHAKTI is Karisma Kapoor's film, all the way, though, and the intensity of her performance once the film switches to India contrasts nicely with the gentle romance with which she engaged with Sanjay in the initial Canadian scenes. Despite the unevenness of much of the picture, Karisma's performance completely sells the film and solidifies its otherwise inconsistent measures. In a strange way, also, I found the story to be another take on the ostentation of royalty I'd noticed in CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER and MARIE ANTOINETTE, both of which I'd seen just prior, although SHAKTI of course is an entirely different kind of film; but the focus on a dysfunctional royal family – here living in the austerity of terrorism-controlled poverty in India rather than the elegance of Versailles or the massive megalomania of feudal China's Tang Dynasty – whose self-serving seeking of power brings ruin upon many others and forces an uprising of one kind or another provides the film with a notable subtext.@@@1 +After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.

I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.@@@0 +What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing.@@@1 +Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.@@@0 +This is the Who at their most powerful. Although before the masterwork Who's Next, which would provide anthems like Baba O'reily and Wont Get Fooled Again. This film shows the group in transition from mod rockers to one of the biggest live bands of the 70's.

Daltrey shows what being a front-man is all about, Entwistle steady as ever.

Moon is great, check out the ongoing conversation with the drum tech, and see him playing "side saddle" whilst having a bass drum head replaced!

Townsend even looks like he's enjoying himself occasionally!

Considering they took to the stage at 2am no one in the crowd was asleep!

There are not many bands these days could produce a set as tight as this and it is difficult to imagine any of the bands of today producing a concert that in 36 years time will be be enjoyed as much as this one.@@@1 +One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!@@@0 +This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.

The Original Drum and Bass.

There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.

This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.

We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.

At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".

John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.

The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.

To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.

The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details…" on that, okay.

The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!

I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.

Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith.@@@1 +With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.@@@0 +This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however.@@@1 +This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?@@@0 +Joe Don Baker is one of a handful of actors who is often better than his material, and almost always under appreciated. He's been in a ton of films either as a heavy or a hero, and has the type of strong, solid presence that Wallace Beery did half a century before him. Baker can delivery material that would sound ridiculous coming out of another actor, and that's what's so great about him. He really seems to mean what he's saying, regardless of how cliché, obvious or silly, which puts him in a league with Tommy Lee Jones, Oliver Reed and Don Stroud. It's what made the WALKING TALL Trilogy work so well, and that same magic is here in FINAL JUSTICE. This was a substantial hit in theaters and on video in the 80s, and it has aged a lot better than many of the perhaps better known action flicks of the era. By moving the action from Texas to Europe, there's a real timeless quality that doesn't jar you away from the action on screen. To be honest, I've always enjoyed the films of Greydon Clark, who is a no-nonsense director in the same vein as 1970s Clint Eastwood, and this is one of his best. FINAL JUSTICE is one of the lost gems of the late 80s, similar to MAN ON FIRE in its true grit and violence. I suppose if they remake this with The Rock, a whole new audience will come to love it as much as I do.@@@1 +The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.@@@0 +Kudos to Cesar Montano for reviving the Cebuano movie! Panaghoy sa Suba is very good -- it has the drama, the action, the romance, and scene that will make you laugh.

While the story is not that original (a love triangle -- or make a four-cornered-love, Japanese occupation, rebellion, American as lord), its presentation is something cool, especially it uses it original language -- bisaya for the Filipino, nipongo for the Japanese and English for the American.

This movie will go as one of this year's best Pinoy movies.

Go watch this!@@@1 +As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.

Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.

The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.

I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.

Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(@@@0 +Well it's been a long year and I'm down to reviewing the final film for 2004. Panaghoy Sa Suba (Call of The River) placed second in the recent Metro Manila Film Festival. As expected, it didn't do so well at the box office as it was too artsy for the common moviegoers especially since MMFF is the season where a lot of families go out to see movies.

It was quite intriguing to see a movie that was not in Filipino or English play out in the screen. I thought Cesar Montano did a good job both as a star and director. His great vision and creativity really helped this film. He was also very effective as the lead star and was able to express a wide range of emotions that was required for the film. Also performing well was young actress Rebecca Lusterio. She did a great job portraying Bikay, the younger sister of Duroy. I hope to see her in many more film projects in the future perhaps venturing into other genres. I think that the fact that this film was in her local dialect really helped her.

Some of the camera shots in the film were done very well. The scenery was made breathtaking even though I feel that if a lesser effort would have looked completely different.

In terms of the story I feel that the writers could have delved further into the lives of the lesser characters in the film. I certainly won't be raving about the story of this film.@@@1 +Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.

*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.

There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.

In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.@@@0 +I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. "Panaghoy" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the "period" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, "Panaghoy" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's "Oro, Plata, Mata", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's "The Color Purple" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of "Noli Me Tangere".@@@1 +When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.@@@0 +As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-@@@1 +People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.@@@0 +On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.

As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.

The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.

In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.

"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.

In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come.@@@1 +Honestly before I watched this movie, I had heard many people said this movie was a disgrace. I did not believe that since Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey have taken roles in this movie, and watched it by my own. Apparently they were right. I was really disappointed and wondering all the time during the movie - why the hell did I watch this movie.

Of course I was not expecting much from Justin as he really does not belong in the movie/theater business. But Morgan and Kevin? I could not stop asking myself why the heck they agreed to take part in Edison. To be honest, their roles are rather stupid.

Well you might think if the players suck, then I should pay more attention to the story. It is indeed story is the core of a movie, but guys... trust me... this is not a movie you want to give a credit for its story. Imagine this, a smart-ass journalist (Justin Timberlake) wrote a story against the system and at the same time learning how to become a 'real' journalist from his boss (Morgan Freeman). This all was supported by one agent who still has heart for justice (LL Cool J) and an brilliant investigator (Kevin Spacey). At the end, they beat the system with a happy ending story.

Jeez, I could not even carry on with this. Just recalling the movie is making me sick already. My advise guys, don't watch this! Please save your money and time for another movie.@@@0 +IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.@@@1 +Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.

Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).

Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.

Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.

Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.

Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.@@@0 +All i hear about is how poorly the animation is done. It may not be up to par with what everyone expects, but look at it this way. Would you expect perfection in hell? It is my belief that the animation was made dry and gritty on purpose. It was great to see her character transformation in this movie, considering it will probably be as close to live action as we will ever get. I hope for a sequel very soon. If we want live action, i think we may be better off with Chastity or Purgatori. I don't think Lady Death would transfer well to film. But be that as it may, It is my own personal belief that all the naysayers about this movie are DEAD wrong. No pun intended.@@@1 +An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.@@@0 +It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.

The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.

Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.

I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!@@@1 +This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.@@@0 +I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.@@@1 +Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...@@@0 +I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes.@@@1 +well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.@@@0 +Although not the best Anime I have ever seen but I enjoyed Lady Death.

I have never read the comic book and just saw this at the video store and decided to give it a chance.

The animation was OK, I got the sense of the 80's anime from it which is what set it off for me. Why everyone else hates that is beyond me.

Character development was fine. I like how they brought the transition from Hope to Lady Death around. for you who don't like it, obviously wasn't paying attention. Lucifer tells you how it happens, and she used his words.

Creamtor was a nice mentor/soldier for her. his dark bruiting style was perfect for this kind of movie.

I think everyone here who has bashed this needs to take another look at it and reconsider. cause everything people have bashed this can be said about everyones favorite anime Vampire Hunter D@@@1 +At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.@@@0 +REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........@@@1 +So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.@@@0 +In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.

I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.

Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me.

Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.@@@1 +From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!@@@0 +This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie.@@@1 +Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....@@@0 +Seldom do we see such short comments written by IMDb filmgoers. Perhaps it's because this lightweight dark comedy entertains and pleases without depth, or are we missing something? I'd watch it again if I had some incentive.

So what's a happenstance? To the French it is "Le Battement d'Ailes du Papillon" Serendipity? Fate? Perhaps it's an event that is the culmination of a series of random happenings. We've all had these (it's called life) but when looked at in this way, you begin to get the feeling that "random" might be more like "fated."

A 'happenstance' in this film might be an occurrence as minor as knocking a few leaves of lettuce off the back of a truck or as major as basing a major life decision on the accuracy of a stranger tossing of a pebble. All these incidents cause other events that ... well you get the picture? Dominoes. Multiply those by 30 characters and an average of 6 each and you have to really stretch your imagination to accept the remote chance that this scenario could happen. And I think that there's a diagnosis for those who believe that life is like this. But then this is the magic world of cinema.

We admit that it is fun to watch the way the writer/director weaves together these unrelated events into a story which enmeshes the lives of these French citizens. If you have a couple of hours and are looking for a whimsical escape, here's the place to do it. Or if you're recovering from surgery and aren't going anywhere anyway, this will engage you while your stitches are healing.

"Happenstance" will not go down as an award winner but it should develop a cult following. Stranger things have happened.

Soren Kierkegaard is attributed with the following: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward." If you looked at the detail in many of your own life experiences (meeting your first love, finding the perfect gift, your last auto accident) you would find a series of seemingly random events leading up to it.

That's the answer! I forgot to bring along an existentialist to explain "Happenstance" to me.@@@1 +There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.@@@0 +"Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)@@@1 +Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.@@@0 +"Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.

Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.

This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show.

"Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show:

- The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat.

- From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts

- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments.

- The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.

Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.

Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.

In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1.@@@1 +Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.

Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.

You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.

Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!@@@0 +This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.@@@1 +Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.@@@0 +Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.@@@1 +Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.@@@0 +This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!@@@1 +They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.@@@0 +This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected.@@@1 +A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.@@@0 +To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

@@@1 +Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.

Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.

This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.@@@0 +Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.

Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.

What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think "damn I really lucked out finding this movie". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.

I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone.@@@1 +A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.@@@0 +The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.@@@1 +STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.

The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.

Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.

NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.

My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.

I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.@@@0 +The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.@@@1 +A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.@@@0 +We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.

This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.

I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement.@@@1 +**Spoilers contained**

I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.@@@0 +When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...

This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!

THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.

B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).@@@1 +Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.

Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.

There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)

Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.

Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.@@@0 +The first and second seasons started off shakily, with good episodes sandwiched in between average ones, and at times resorting to clichéd stories. But once it started to set up the universe in which it exists and started to develop it's characters more, it became a lot more fun and entertaining.

The main reason this show succeeds it because of four men: Richard Dean Anderson, Peter Deluise, Joseph Malozzie and Paul Mullie. Richard's dry sense of humour makes to show so much better, Peter's directing is excellent and makes any episode so much more entertaining, and Joe & Paul never fail to make a funny, interesting episode together.

Once you understand what the show is about and get to know the characters, I doubt you won't like the show. For those getting into the show I suggest the episodes 'The Other Side', a good serious episode, and 'Window of Opportunity', a classic comic relief episode.@@@1 +The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.

The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.

Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.

That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.@@@0 +That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.

All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.

This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.

The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.

There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.

The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.

But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.

It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too.@@@1 +First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK@@@0 +Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..

Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..

Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..

This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors..@@@1 +When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.

SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.

During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again).

Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming.

What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.

I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery.

But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.@@@0 +The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.

Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.

Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.

Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.

This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.

The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast.@@@1 +Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.

This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.

Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.

Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.

Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!

It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.@@@0 +*some spoilers*

I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.

The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic.@@@1 +I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!@@@0 +... and I DO mean it. If not literally (after all, I have not seen every movie ever created!), at least, obviously, among the ones, the many I know.

5.3 ??? The rule of thumb with IMDb is this: sometimes movies rated very highly (for example, the piece of Kannes-Kompetition-Krowned-Korean-Kraap called "Oldboy") can be truly bad. But rarely a movie worth watching is actually rated under 6. This movie, very much worth watching, is. A disgrace.

True, I give it a 10 in protest. The movie is not perfect. Its true rating should be an 8 or a 9. It has some acting flaws (Belafonte especially), the script wanders around, sometimes. However, what we have here is one of the greatest directors of all times, the Czech Jan Kadar, directing two of the greatest actors of all time, the beloved, larger-than-life Zero Mostel and the sublime Ida Kaminska in an acting/poetic/moral tour de force. A pair made in Heaven! It's true that this movie, little flaws apart, does not pander to the average audiences, but those interested in watching an excellent (while, again, not beyond criticism) movie of the incomparable director who gave us "The Shop on the Main Street" (the best movie ever about Holocaust) should not miss this just because some silly IMDb rating system decides that "American Beauty" is better than "The Angel Levine".

It isn't.@@@1 +Spoilers

Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!

In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.

Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?

So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?

I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.

A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor@@@0 +I got a good laugh reading all the idiotic comments for this film,

as it's obvious that those people who criticized the movie never seen it, or were stupid enough to pay to see it.

The best reason to watch was on the Elvira show a few years back. Elvira delivered the movie with as many laughs as one can.

It's an ok monster flick, compared to the hundreds of horrendous American flicks made. Way better!!!!@@@1 +Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

2.5/10 Bleah@@@0 +I was around 7 when I saw this movie first. It wasn't so special then,but a few years later I saw it again and that time it made fun,a lot:)

I think the best parts of the film are: Yeti's body language and the 'special effects ' also.

If you wanna watch this movie ,don't wait for a Hollywood made blockbuster,even this film was made from approx. 1000 dollars :)

I've a copy of it.Movie and video version as well(But I don't think it had been ever shown in cinemas)

Watch it,enjoy it!!!Yeti for ever!!!@@@1 +"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.

The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.

It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others.

Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.@@@0 +Most yeti pictures are fatally undermined by a grave paucity of energy and enthusiasm. Not so this gloriously bent, batty and berserk over-the-top Italian-made shot-in-Canada kitsch gut-buster: It's a wildly ripe and vigorously moronic ghastly marvel which reaches a stunning apotheosis of righteously over-baked "what the hell's going on?" crackpot excess and inanity.

A freighter ship crew discovers the body of a 30-foot yeti that resembles a hirsute 70's disco stud (complete with jumbo wavy afro) perfectly preserved in a large chunk of ice. They dethaw the beast, jolt him back to life with electric charges, grossly mistreat him, and keep the poor hairy Goliath in an enormous glass booth. Before you can say "Hey, the filmmakers are obviously ripping off 'King Kong'," our titanic abominable snowdude breaks free of his cage, grabs the first luscious nubile blonde Euro vixen (the gorgeous Pheonix Grant) he lays lustful eyes on, and storms away with his new lady love. The yeti gets recaptured and flown to Toronto to be showed off to a gawking audience. Of course, he breaks free again, nabs the vixen, and goes on the expected stomping around the city rampage.

The sublimely stupid dialogue (sample line: "Philosophy has no place in science, professor"), cheesy (far from) special effects (the horrendous transparent blue screen work and cruddy Tonka toy miniatures are especially uproarious in their very jaw-dropping awfulness), clunky (mis)direction, and a heavy-handed script that even attempts a clumsily sincere "Is the yeti a man or a beast?" ethical debate all combine together to create one of the single most delightfully ridiculous giant monster flicks to ever roar its absurd way across the big screen. Better still, we also have a few funky offbeat touches to add extra shoddy spice to the already succulently schlocky cinematic brew: the vixen accidentally brushes against one of the yeti's nipples, which causes it to harden and elicits a big, leering grin of approval from the lecherous behemoth (!); the vixen nurses the yeti's wounded hand while he makes goo-goo eyes at her, the yeti smashes windows with his feet while climbing a towering office building, and the furry fellow even breaks a man's neck with his toes (!!). Overall, this singularly screwball and shamefully unheralded should-be camp classic stands tall as a remarkable monolith of infectiously asinine celluloid lunacy that's eminently worthy of a substantial hardcore underground cult following.@@@1 +This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.

There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.

Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.

Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss.@@@0 +Being a giant monster fan, me seeing "Yeti" was an absolute must, especially after hearing so much about it. Thanks to the good 'ol bootleg market I was able to find a copy pretty easily, and was happily surprised upon watching that this flick was actually, dare I say, decent.

Decent for what it is, actually, namely a cheesy giant-monster flick. It kicks in pretty quickly as Yeti is found pretty much immediately, and we get introduced to various characters. They consist of some sleazy ones, some good ones, and a girl who is pretty much one of the most downright strikingly beautiful girls in any cheesy sci-fi film, by far.

Yeti looks like a long-haired guy straight out of the original Woodstock concert, and really, he's not that bad of a dude, especially after being introduced to the world in some kind of funky cage-like thing. Godzilla he is not - despite his rude awakening, he doesn't even rampage (actually he rarely destroys anything in the whole picture), but kinda just looks puzzled while trying to figure things out. Yeti seems to understand English pretty nicely (my copy was dubbed in English) and he knows who the good guys and bad guys are.

However, we want to see the giant Yeti do his thing, and he's pretty much in the whole movie, and in typical low-budget fashion, he seems to change size a lot depending on the scene and there's even a bunch of the "fake legs" shots of him just standing there.

Yes, the special effects aren't the greatest, but there are definitely some good ones here. A scene where Yeti smashes through a warehouse is done very well, and in another, he uses the windows of a building as "ladder steps" to climb down from the top of it - shattering each window with his foot and often shocking the occupants inside - in one sequence that really looks much, much better than it should in such a "bad" movie.

"Yeti" never stoops as low as say, "A.P.E." does. Actually the only time it even comes close to genuine silliness is when the beautiful girl causes Yeti's nipple to become erect and he lifts his eyebrow in an "oh yeah baby" manner. But even this isn't that bad, and kinda even gets a laugh out of the viewer.

The movie is pretty long for this kind of thing, but surprisingly enough it doesn't get boring - the story is actually good, and just watching this utterly gorgeous actress on screen will make any male viewer happy.

"Yeti" may not be in the upper echelon of giant monster flicks, but it is definitely better than other King Kong '76 rip-offs like "A.P.E." and "Queen Kong" by very far.@@@1 +To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.

Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10@@@0 +YETI deserves the 8 star rating because it is the one of the greatest bad movies ever made. I saw it at a midnight screening in L.A. and people were roaring and cheering at the insanity - this movie is one of those cinematic trainwrecks where you think it cant get any stranger and THEN IT DOES! The millionaire who funds the project to thaw the Yeti looks like Chris Penn and John Goodman both poured into an ill-fitting suit - the guy playing the scientist is one of the worst actors to ever appear on screen - and yes, there is a mute boy (who sorta kinda looks like a girl) and he's mute ever since he survived a plane crash that killed both his parents (hmmm- maybe therapy for the kid??). Then this hottie Italian girl is seen by Yeti (once he thaws - which takes FOREVER) -- and he is instantly in love with her - what is one of the most hysterical things about the movie is that this giant Yeti makes "bedroom eyes" at her - it's like a large Barry White trying to seduce a groupie. In fact, once the large Yeti picks up the hottie and has her against his chest - she accidentally touches the Yeti's nipple and yes, the film takes the time to show his large grey nipple GET HARD!!!! Yikes of all YIKES! Plus there's a collie dog in it because the Italian producer must have heard that American audiences like dogs and he sorta kinda tried to get a Lassie - there's also this insane scene where the Yeti eats a giant fish - keeps the large fishbone and uses it to comb the Italian girl's hair "Gee, thanks Yeti - now my hair is smooth and smells like dead trout. You're the best." This film is more bizarre than something Ed Wood could have ever dreamt up. If you are a fan of classic cinema crap - seek this baby out.@@@1 +I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!@@@0 +Stargate is the best show ever. All the actors are absolutely perfect for there roles. I love the connection between the characters. If you have not seen this show I very highly recommend it. Although this program is compared to Star trek a lot of the time it actually can't be because it is completely different. I am a star trek fan but i would definitely rate this show well above any of the star treks. Unfortunately I live in New Zealand and we do not get Stargate on our TV so if i want to see it I have to buy the DVDs and season 10 is not out here yet so i can not see it for quite some time (which is highly depressing). However this program is very very good and is a must see, but be warned it is highly addictive. So in summery I Love Stargate (and Amanda Tapping).@@@1 +Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.

Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!@@@0 +People forget that there have been several King Kong ripoffs- Congo, King Kong Vs. Godzilla, King Kong (1976), they all ripoff one another, but YETI stands on its own. It only borrows one element from King Kong and that is the animal's attraction with one female.

The YETI myth is based on Bigfoot (not like King Kong)and archeologists have been fascinated it, at one time they did exist,but there is no scientific data to prove it.

This movie is hard to find ,but its worth watching it. The first time I watched it was on "Elvira's Mistress of the Dark Shows" in the early 1980's. It sent chills down my spine as a kid, especially when the YETI got mad. I saw it again, around 1:00am on ABC about 2 to 3yrs ago. Seeing it again made me appreciate it more, it has some overall good effects (for its time) and the story involves a mute boy and his dog, and an evil businessman person who wants to kill the YETI for his own purposes. Also the music is pretty cool,its very YETI like. :-)

Gianfranco Parolini and the Yetians creates a great monster like atmosphere.

Vote 7 and half out of 10.@@@1 +Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.

I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.

Amateur in the extreme!

Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!@@@0 +Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).

The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.

It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED.

He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.

10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face.@@@1 +Frankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.@@@0 +Having seen most of Ringo Lam's films, I can say that this is his best film to date, and the most unusual. It's a ancient china period piece cranked full of kick-ass martial arts, where the location of an underground lair full of traps and dungeons plays as big a part as any of the characters. The action is fantastic, the story is tense and entertaining, and the set design is truely memorable. Sadly, Burning Paradise has not been made available on DVD and vhs is next-to-impossible to get your mitts on, even if you near the second biggest china-town in North America (like I do). If you can find it, don't pass it up.@@@1 +It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this.@@@0 +I have always been keen on watching Hong Kong movies, but all of them failed to meet my expectations...until now! BURNING PARADISE doesn't contain the flat humor most HK movies have, nor a second rate story line that has been dragged into the film. The story is not complex, but there are never scenes that are just there to fill some "intelligent" space (the only truely intelligent martial arts film I have seen is CROUCHING TIGER, but since Hollywood is involved it is no true HK movie for me). There are some incredible fight scenes in this movie, from the first one(which is one of the coolest I have ever seen, yet so short) to the last main scenes! But mind, there's also a lot of blood that flows (people cut in half, decapitated, etc). The production is pretty good and the special effects show that the fantasy of the writer can be fulfilled even though some shots must be pretty technical (notice: the sheet of paper that he throws and got pinned into a wall!). Yep, it's not Tsui Hark or John Woo that made my favorite Hong Kong film, it's Ringo Lam! And I'm sure as hell going to check out more from this director! Ace.@@@1 +When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.

I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.

This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!@@@0 +

"Burning Paradise" is a combination of neo-Shaw Brothers action and Ringo Lam's urban cynicism. When one watches the film, they might feel the fight scenes are only mediocre in nature but that doesn't matter, it's attitude and atmosphere that counts. This great film has both!! Always trying to be different than his contemporaries, Lam gives us to traditional heroes(Fong Sai-Yuk and Hung Shi-Kwan)and puts them in a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" setting. However, these are not the light-hearted comedic incarnations that you might see in a Jet Li movie. Instead these guys fight to the death with brutal results. What makes the film even better is that anyone could die at anytime, there is no holding back. Too bad, they don't make films like this more often.@@@1 +I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.

It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.

Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.@@@0 +An unusual film from Ringo Lam and one that's strangely under-appreciated. The mix of fantasy kung-fu with a more realistic depiction of swords and spears being driven thru bodies is startling especially during the first ten minutes. A horseback rider get chopped in two and his waist and legs keep riding the horse. Several horses get chopped up. It's very unexpected.

The story is very simple, Fong and his Shaolin brothers are captured by a crazed maniac general and imprisoned in the Red Lotus temple which seems to be more of a torture chamber then a temple. The General has a similarity to Kurtz in Apocalypse Now as he spouts warped philosophy and makes frightening paintings with human blood.

The production is very impressive and the setting is bleak. Blood is everywhere. The action is very well done and mostly coherent unlike many HK action scenes from the time. Sometimes the movie veers into absurdity or the effects are cheesy but it's never bad enough to ruin the film.

Find this one, it's one of the best HK kung fu films from the early nineties. Just remember it's not child friendly.@@@1 +The only reason I give it a 2 is that filmography is so stylized these days such that it has at least something to comment on.

This film is asinine. It's like so many other 21st century grind house fodder. The gore is gratuitous and simply revolting. I didn't care about any of the characters, but I did care that some cretin bothered to pen this crap: I'd complain about the money I spent, but my date and I wisely left after 40 minutes and went to an adjoining theater to watch the adventurous and entertaining "Live Free or Die Hard," which probably got a much higher rating from me simply because I endured the utter poop of "Captivity" for 40 minutes.@@@0 +Hello Dave Burning Paradise is a film for anyone who likes Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones. The films main protagonist is most definitely the bastard son of these two strange fathers. As for the other characters well they are familiar transformations of similar action film stereotypes. Where this film is original is in the blending of the traditional Hong Kong movie style with the Hollywood action adventure. Sadly this has not been true of the films he has made in Hollywood.@@@1 +Absolutely fantastic.

Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.

P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.@@@0 +This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's "ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain". Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. "Burning Paradise" put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.

It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.

When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from "Paradise Lost": "Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!" And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.

That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.

Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all.@@@1 +The documentary revolves around Eva Mozes Kor, a holocaust survivor, part of Mengele's experiments on twins, consisting primarily her version of what happened at Auschwitz, and a comparison of the emotions of the other survivors of the twin experiments. The movie obviously had great reviews. It's one of those topics that no one dares to voice a contrary opinion about.

I too, for a large part of the movie, got sucked into the emotion that the movie-maker so obviously wanted the viewer to concentrate on. One of the user reviews on IMDb by Eric Monder (obviously having nothing critical to say about the issue on a public forum) could only find the sweetest nectar. "In one of the many dramatic sequences, as a group of Jews argue with Kor at a Jewish center, the meaning of the word "forgive" is even debated, but the isolated and outnumbered Kor holds her own" But by this time, the sappy hold that the movie had on my dormant emotional repertoire had let loose enough that I could see clearly once more. After the "strong-willed" Eva Kor forgives her "Nazi captors" the movie begins to delve into what forgiving is all about, at least from the viewpoint of Kor. The movie goes about following her, past her public statement forgiving the Nazis and into new territory. To me, this was the meat of the movie, surrounded by inedible fat of her "act of forgiveness". Obviously, it was a very sick cow.

On a mission to test her theory of forgiveness, in order to heal wounds of the past, she makes her way to the "promised land" to meet with some Arabs, to discuss with them the issues that they face and to see if dialogue cannot lead to a better understanding of the situation and heavily interspersed with debates and discussions with Jews in the US on her act of forgiving the Nazis, including one at a Jewish center in Chicago. From then on, anyone not so teary eyed that they can't see the screen will find it hard-pressed to miss the obvious contradiction in her statements.

Firstly, you immediately notice her body language, defensive and unwilling to listen in a room full of Arab scholars and teachers. Her comments about how she feared that they might kidnap her shows how much of a waste of time, effort and money the entire act was. A rather annoyed Dr Sami Advan (Professor of education at Bethlehem University) gets it just right when he tells Kor off for a statement she makes about how she would rather be asleep in her apartment.

Finally, the debate at the Jewish center in Chicago, where she is "grilled" on the meaning of forgiveness and her right to do so, in the wake of those that continue suffering through the trauma of the acts.

I will cut to the chase. By the end of the movie, I was hoping I hadn't chosen to watch the movie. The movie was badly made, failing to delve deeper into anything about Auschwitz apart from the purely trivial, just sufficient to make sure the holocaust is refreshed in the viewers memory and to incite a barrage of tears. It showed that Kor, the subject of the documentary was unable to engage in fair discussion. Her discussion abilities were limited to parroting her stance on forgiveness (at best) to a complete unwillingness to listen or participate.

Lastly, is everyone so retarded today that they can't notice the difference between making peace and forgiving? Quoting another IMDb user, "I don't see her forgiveness as being weak- quite the contrary, she just wanted to relieve its hold from her soul, she wanted the suffering to be over, so she let it go." That would be the perfect layman's definition of MAKING PEACE.

I guess, in a world of propaganda, blind faith and political correctness, there is no room to question those that have "gone through more than the human mind can fathom".

P.S. The dictionary certainly should go into all those Books-to-buy lists everyone keeps making.@@@0 +People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.@@@1 +This movie looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film.@@@0 +I disagree with Anyone who done't like this movie.

I used to LOVE this movie when I was little and I still do. It's sweet, funny and warms your heart. And It proves that love and friendship can never be destroyed.

And even though it didn't have much of a story, it was still excellent I give it a 10 and two thumbs up.

Oh yeah and it proves that your deepest wish's and dreams can come true. (Tear, tear)

I love this movie, personally if anyone says it sucked than I will say "Shame on you." Because it was a delightful little movie and I'm glad that at least SOME people liked it.@@@1 +Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.

The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.

With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.@@@0 +This show has been my escape from reality for the past ten years. I will sadly miss it. Although Atlantis has filled the hole a small bit.

The last ever episode of SG1(on television anyway)was beautifully done. Robert wrote something that felt close to reality. As though he was trying to explain what it was like on the set of the show. (Everyone working closely together for such a long time there are bound to up's and downs. But over the years they've turned into a family). I thought this was a wonderful way to end despite anyone else's criticisms.

SG1 was something special and time and time again it took me across thresholds of disbelief and amazement. The wonderful characters, stories, directors, writers. From episode one I was hooked. The blend of action, science, drama and especially comedy worked so well that made me keep wanting more.

There are no real words in which to completely express what this show meant to me. I can only thank those who kept the show so fresh and entertaining for so many years. It has inspired me to do many things that I thought was impossible.

I look forward to the movies next year and I really hope there will be a number of them. I never want the show to die.

Stargate SG1 - 1997 - 2007?@@@1 +LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a "renegade" cop within a "renegade" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of "gentle giant" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.

This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.

Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.

What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.

If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.@@@0 +Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?

Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?

What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some "brain grain cereal" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans…

My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)

Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem… Enjoy! :-)@@@1 +I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.

I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).

The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.

As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.

That is all I have to say about that.....@@@0 +I do try not to take IMDb ratings to heart, but I was flabbergasted when I saw the 5.4 rating to one of my childhood favourites. It doesn't wow me as much at 17, but as a family film this is a sweet and well meaning movie. Kids will definitely love it and won't mind the flaws, and the adults can guess the actor behind each character and admire the subliminal messaging of the film. None of the film was preachy in any way, in fact it has a great message that added to its sweetness. I will admit though that the story is on the thin side, and some scenes like Screweyes's death(which still freaks me out) may be a tad on the scary side. But the animation is well above average with nice colours and good character animation. The music by James Horner is very beautiful, and the song featured is memorable, catchy and amusing. I really liked the characters, Louie is probably the most in-depth of them all, but the dinosaurs were at least engaging. Martin Short's clown was both hilarious and emphatic, the part when he tells Screweyes "I quit!" had me in stitches. My favourite is Screweyes though, an effective villain who is crafty and I suppose intelligent. If anything though, I wish the film kept in the part when he explains how he lost his eye and why he is scared of crows because that way he could've been more developed in terms of depth. The script, while not Oscar-worthy, has its funny and heart-warming parts, and should keep kids and adults entertained. The voice acting for me was what made the movie. John Goodman, Martin Short, Rhea Perlman, Felicity Kendall and Yeardley Smith all gave solid performances, but special mention has to go to Kenneth Mars for he was absolutely superb as Screweyes and almost unrecognisable. All in all, this is a good movie. I don't get the rating, honestly I don't. Sure this film isn't perfect, and it is not as good as a dinosaur movie such as Land Before Time, but it is good fun. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox@@@1 +This is an incomprehensible horribly low budget piece of awfulness.

I don't even have the vocabulary to say how dire, turgid, boring, confusing, and just plain strange this effort is (Hey what d'ya know I do....) Set in a post-Apocalyptic America some guys meet on a beach and slaughter and chaos ensue - it was all so incomprehensible I couldn't make head or tail of any of it.

Seriously how this got picked up by National Lampoon totally defeats me: it really is awful.

And not in a its so bad it's good cult way.

It is just awful, awful, awful, awful.

Honestly. If you still don't believe me then watch it with every intention of loving it then come back here and tell me what you think. Even gerbils on acid couldn't hope to understand this.

Avoid or even better destroy...@@@0 +I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.

These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.

Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.

Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think.@@@1 +This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.

The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.

I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.

At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.@@@0 +its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any@@@1 +This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.@@@0 +I wouldn't call "We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story" simply a kiddie version of "Jurassic Park". I found it more interesting than that. Like the former, it calls into question the security of bringing beings from one era into ours. But it really opens my eyes when I see who provided the voices: John Goodman, Rhea Perlman, Jay Leno, Walter Cronkite, Julia Child, Kenneth Mars, Yeardley Smith, Martin Short and Larry King. To paraphrase that: a given actor, the "Cheers" woman, the "Tonight Show" host, the Most Trusted Name In News, a famous chef, the "Young Frankenstein" police chief, Lisa Simpson, one of the Three Amigos and the CNN guy.

But I guess that I shouldn't focus only on the cast. I thought that this movie had something for both children (purely fun) and adults (natural history). True, it's escapism, but the perceptive kind. I would actually say that John Goodman doing Rex's voice here is sort of a precursor to his voice work in "Monsters Inc". Worth seeing.@@@1 +I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.

This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.@@@0 +this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!@@@1 +I expected alot from this movie. Kinda like Lee as a Naustradamous like caracter but instead all I got was a waste of time and a boring movie. I can't even explain this movie. It had wooden acting, terrible script from pieces from the Bible like hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes. But that was at the end! The rest of it I had to wait and hope that something meaningfull would happen but it didn't. This movie is about a couple that tries to find out the changes going on in the world like places in China where there was an earthquake and end up at a convent run by eight nuns and a priest. The convent end up being the key to the misshappenings. The whole movie is missleading and boring. One of Lees worst.@@@0 +This movie has to be my favorite of all time. Its not supposed to have a plot, because its makers wanted people (Charlie Sheen, I think)to believe it was a real snuff film. This was an exercise in visual effects, and doesn't cut away when the action happens like every other film does. Movies these days are now all about sound effects, leaving the visuals to be made by computers cause its easier to deal with CGI blood. There still are movie makers who still can't get fake blood to look like the real thing. There is no rape scene because that wasn't the point of making the film. Have you seen the hills have eyes 2? The rape scene was funny instead of shocking. Although i'm sure there are some GONZO porn film makers that have tried to marry porn with horror. But since they probably suck at making films, they probably wouldn't be able to pull it off. The movie "Baise Moi" has a disturbing rape scene because the actresses are actually porn stars and they show everything even though the movie overall sucks.

Its too bad that a movie can't be made without thinking of the money aspect of it all, especially when talking about an AO or NC-17 rating. I'm sure Eli Roth has the ability/talent to make his Hostel film series much much better, but he has too tame it down to get an R rating...or at least I hope that his movies sucked because of these limitations.

Watch Traces of Death or More than Smashed Pumpkins if you want no frills real footage (accident & crime scenes/footage). Don't forget that this movie was made in 1985. The fact that this film can still stand up against most crap made these days says a lot about this film. That would be like someone saying the 8bit Super Mario Brothers sucks because the PS3 has better graphics.@@@1 +End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.@@@0 +This movie is banned in just about every foreign country I can think of. The Japanese people (?) who star in this must have been really desperate for a job, or we're just friends. Here's the scoop:

Three thugs torture the hell out of a helpless woman, they use all kinds of things to eventually kill her, they burn her, kick her, spin here around in a chair (over 200 times!), they use sound torture (by forcing her to listen to a static sound for over 20 hours! It don't sound that bad at all, but it CAN make you go nuts). They throw guts (probably from an animal) at her while shes knocked out, and she freaks when she wakes up. And who can forget the grande finale the GREATEST EYEBALL TORTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN!

If you have not heard of these films, and watch one without knowing that it is a simulated snuff film, you will think it is! (just ask Charlie Sheen) This is guaranteed to freak people out and make some sick! Like I said pure underground. Check it out if you are a fan of underground horror, or foreign gore. If your not I highly recommend you read-up on the series before watching! From the gore, shock, and creativity aspect it gets a 10, but from the storyline and all that stuff it is a 1. An underground classic...

My final rating is a 8/10

@@@1 +This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, its horrible. Christopher Lee is good but he is hardly in it, the only the good part is the opening scene.

Don't be fooled by the title. "End of the World" is truly a bad movie, I stopped watching it close to the end it was so bad, only for die hard b-movie fans that have the brain to stand this vomit.@@@0 +I first heard of this movie after purchasing the 1976 flick "Snuff". I was told that Devil's Experiment was much better so naturally I went ahead and ordered the Guinea Pig box set. I was really interested to hear that Charlie Sheen had come out trying to ban either this movie or the second one, so my interest was peaked.

Devil's Experiment is a short film with no story, no character development. Just 3 men torturing a woman for about 45 minutes. They torture her in various ways like beating her, spinning her in circles over and over again then forcing her to drink alcohol, forcing her to listen to hi-pitched noise for 24 hours, smash her hand with a mallet, burning and putting maggots on the burns, throwing guts at her, and ultimately shoving a sharp needle through her eye.

I must say that a lot of this movie was fake, like the beating scenes. But then, some of it was actually well done as far as grossing you out. The scenes in which the woman is being spun around in circles was making me dizzy watching it. Or the scene in which she is forced to listen to sharp noise for 24 hours is painful to think about. The worst is the eye scene. I didn't shutter when watching it but simply thought "Damn, that looks pretty good for such a low budget movie". I did enjoy the flick but I don't know if I can really recommend this unless you have seen most of what the horror genre has to offer. 7/10@@@1 +end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10.@@@0 +This is the first out of the Guinea Pig series, and is one of the more infamous films out of the collection.

It took me a long time to finally man up and get my hands on a copy of this notorious group of films. I bought the Guinea Pig Box Set and decided to watch the collection in order by release date. So I popped this sucker in and sat down.

From what I had read on the internet, and realizing the content involved in this film, I was expecting to test my nerves in full force. This ended up not being the case.

The film focuses on a group of men who kidnap a woman and begin torturing her with the hopes of discovering the human breaking point, and how long a human can tolerate pain.

Sounds like one sick flick right? Wrong. The film fails to shock. This may be because I have become desensitized over the years do to my obsession with horror, but I think it is safe to say that any true gorehound could sit through this with ease.

On the other hand an individual who does not have a well knowledge of this type of film will most likely be overwhelmed and disgusted by the images they see on the screen. Though it failed to shock me the film contains some pretty mean spirited and graphic scenes of violence. Including the ripping out of fingernails, intestines thrown at an unconscious woman, and a needle through the eye.

Overall I think for majority of the gorehounds on this board that you should just get your hands on a copy of this film for the novelty of it, but I suggest that for any new comers to these type of films that you should work your way up to this one.@@@1 +What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.@@@0 +I haven't always been a fan, but the show grew on me. It wasn't until after season 5 that I started to see the richness of the show. They finally brought Daniel Jackson's search for his wife to an end and finally most of the Go,ould System Lords were killed by rival Lords, SG-1 or others.

Towards Season 5, Stargate SG-1, was beginning to become stale. With the new writers and the close attention by Produer Peter Deleuise, the show became more and more solid.

The characters had become stale as well. Colonel Jack O'Neill was the stereotypical hero with emotional baggage. After his son Charlie was killed in a shooting accident with O'Neill's weapon, he had decided to end his own life by going to Abydos in order to face off with the Go'ould RA. The character offers little growth for any actor and actor Richard Dean Anderson chose to play him straight raising emotional barriers to protect himself. only allowing his close friends in.

Amanda Tapping joined the cast as Captain Samantha Carter. She was a feminist on the edge, ready to battle any man who would doubt her ability to do her job. Though this character had little area to grow, Tapping has done a great job of concentrating on Carter's strengths. She has taken the time to get a basic understanding of some of the things Carter talks about in order that she can present the character intelligently.

Christopher Judge joined the cast playing the alien Teal'c. Teal'c was an alien called the Jaffa. Infant Go'ould, (snake like creatures) would embed themselves into the Jaffa until they had grown to the point when it would be inserted into another life form. The Jaffa would die. Teal'c was the First Prime of Apophis' army. Knowing that Apophis was not a god like Go'ould pretend, he realized the genocide that their armies had wreaked on the galaxy. Finally, having had enough, he and Jack O'Neill freed their team along with quite a few innocent people. After arriving on Earth, he realized that Earth was the planet he was looking for, who would help him fight the Go'ould. Christopher Judge has done quite a bit with a limited character. Teal'c is a wise warrior, much of which he learned was from his teacher Master Bra'tac. The show would not be complete without Master Bra'tac played by Tony Amandola. He is also a rock. In the end, he became adviser to most of SG-1, especially Daniel Jackson.

Don S. Davil was there from the beginning playing Major General George Hammand. Davis has done an incredible job with Hammond making him sympathetic and normal. He does his job, has a wife, sons and daughters and grandchildren. You can really say, he is the anchor of the base. Simply, I would die for that man. If not allowed by his superiors to provide troops to support teams off world. He will go himself. He doesn't leave anyone behind.

I saved Dr. Daniel Jackson for last, because this character, I believe has grown the most in the ten or eleven years it has been on. In choosing Shanks I don't think the producer realized how strong Shanks would be and now when people talk about Jackson, they don't talk about Spader, they talk about Shanks. In the early years, the Jackson character came off as a whiner. That's why I probably wasn't a fan. As the seasons pasted, the character became stronger. This gave him confidence. In the end, as of season 10, the Jackson character has matured to the point that he has become a self sacrificing hero. He still monitors the groups ethics. He still is lead at providing information that can move any mission forward. Acheaology, History, Culture and Exploration are part of his very being. He is determined. Though a man of peace, he has matured to the point that using his weapons may be the only way to solve a disagreement.

Other characters include, most recently: Vala Mal Doran(Claudia Black) and Colonel Cameron Mitchell(Ben Browder), new lead of SG-1. Both actors come from a series called Farscape and why they were put together is any bodies guess. I see little difference between Mitchell and Crichton (Farscape character). Black's character is simply off the wall. Definitely different from her soldier like character Arin Soon.@@@1 +i saw this movie at the toronto film festival with fairly solid expectations. the movie has a great cast and was closing at the festival so it must be good, right? how wrong i was.

i knew we were in trouble when before the film the director was talking about how when he was directing an episode of wiseguy he met an unknown actor named kevin spacey (a director/writer of wiseguy making his feature debut = blah)... well the director/writer of Edison must have some incriminating pictures of kevin spacey killing a homeless man, because i cannot see how he (along with the other actors in the film) would ever agree to be in this disaster.

this movie is absolutely appalling! it's a mixture of every cop hard boiled cliché ever. there is nothing new with Edison. the acting was bad and the direction was even worse. it looked like that aforementioned episode of wiseguy. this was the best casted direct to video movie i've ever seen.

some examples of just bad silly moments in Edison... morgan freeman dancing around his apartment for no reason to rock and roll music... justin timberlake getting creative criticism from his belle while his apartment is surrounded by candles... llcoolj driving a vintage firebird... 3 guys being shot in the head...

this movie is the opposite of good.

STAY AWAY FROM EDISON!@@@0 +Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment is without a doubt ***** stars on first view, its a raw realistic creepy and disturbing look into the dark side of human nature. This movie gets right to the point, you may be thinking what point? The point is to satisfy fan's of just extreme violence and gore. This movie has some gore, more or less just torturing a women violently. There are really only 3 scene's that could be considered gore. I'll tell you one thing though Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment makes Hostile look like Sesame Street. If you thought Hostile was a crazy brutal disturbing torture flick then you ain't seen the half of it until you've seen Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment.

Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10

Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment (Uncut) ***** (7)@@@1 +Dull, cheap sci-fi thriller, made with an almost total lack of conviction (a control room full of computers and other devices used to receive and decipher messages from outer space is run by only ONE MAN, and is VERY poorly guarded at night), and full of campy sound effects. Christopher Lee is not only wasted, but he also gives one of his few "I'm here strictly for the money" performances. (*1/2)@@@0 +I am surprised than many viewers hold more respect for the sequel to this brilliant movie... I have seen all the guinea pigs and this one is easily the best.

Even though ive seen the "making of", i still have doubts when watching those 35mins of pure torture : its that powerful.

A 10 out of 10 because this movie achieved perfectly what it set out to do : be the best fake snuff film ever made.@@@1 +A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here.@@@0 +After having watched "Guinea Pig", two questions come in mind ( besides 'Am I really a psychopath to watch that ?' ) : 'Is it a snuff ?' The answer is no ; although it's the closest thing to a snuff movie I've ever seen. And then : 'Where the hell have they found that girl ?'. Because she gets tortured for '45 min, without any reasons given ( in fact, there is nothing else in this movie !) : Fingernails teared off, beaten with hands, feet, tools, infested by maggots, ... and many more until the final scene ( I'm still not sure how they did that ). Because it belongs to the 'japonese underground scene', it's obvious she didn't get a lot of money. So what were her ( their ) motivations ?

I saw it in japonese without subtitles, but it's not a problem ( no real dialogues, the boys are just insulting her in a few scenes ). I haven't seen yet all the serial, but the first "Guinea Pig" is not known for being the best one. Still I've rated 8, because if the purpose was making people believe this a snuff, the issue is quite good ( ask Charlie Sheen, the actor ). But I think they could have gone further, which they did in the following ones.

Another movie I'm hiding from my parents.

8/10@@@1 +"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull.

*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee@@@0 +This movie has no story. It's only about a bunch of guys who tortures an innocent young girl to death.

!!!SPOILERS!!!

This is what they do: They beat her, put her in a net and let her hang inside like birdfood, spin her around on a chair until she pukes, expose her to loud noise, pour boiling oil on her, put worms in her sores, crush her hand with a sledge-hammer and finally pokes a needle through her eye.

This movie was so realistic that if I didn't know it was fake I would have thought it was a snuff-movie. Although I was disgusted by this movie i really liked it. It scared me. I guess it fills some kind of purpose. I give it a 10/10.@@@1 +Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film!@@@0 +I have seen the short movie a few years ago. After that I watch all sequels. The first one is really not the best - but it's the most popular one. I've already watch the making of Guinea Pig 1. It's really great what these guys did. Also the sequels are excellent in the special effects. Take your chance to watch it!@@@1 +Spoilers

Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.

Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.

That's it.

I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide "what the heck, who needs earth anyway?" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.

Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever.@@@0 +This movie is the first of the six infamous Guinea Pig Movies and is one of the best. At the same time, it looks realistic and unrealistic, just knowing that the movie is fake. The story is about a woman who got captured and is tortured in a lot of different ways. A man in the beginning of the story receives a letter without a return address, and it includes a manga video, showing the torture. The men who capture her are testing the limits of a human before they die. Some scenes are shocking, such as the eyeball scene and others are not shocking like the girl being punched 100 times, because you see punches in nearly every movie. This movie has a lot of gore so I would recommend this to people 17 or older.

9/10@@@1 +It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."

The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.

"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:

"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!"

This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.

Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him.@@@0 +The first installment of this notorious horror series is presented as if it were a snuff film discovered by the producers and set up like an amateur camcorder tape, complete with a digital timer at the bottom of the frame. It presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her. The hapless victim is beaten savagely and pelted with raw meat before having her fingernails pulled out with pliers, her hand smashed with a hammer, her eye punctured with a needle, and so forth.

In the most nauseating scene, the woman's captors burn her with hot water and drop live maggots into the burns. The series received a great deal of publicity when American actor Charlie Sheen, believing the series to contain actual murder, attempted to ban its distribution in the United States. An FBI investigation revealed that the films were only what they appeared to be to most viewers -- sick re-creations using nasty, but obvious special effects. Gruesomely staged by acclaimed Japanese comic-book artist Hideshi Hino, who also directed the third and fourth episodes, this film is a sure way to clear all but the most tolerant of rooms. But, gorehounds probably won't find anything special.@@@1 +Your mind will not be satisfied by this no—budget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.

Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybrid—not only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a well—known character actor.

This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of convent—exploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride!@@@0 +what can i say about this film that hasnt already been said? well to tell the truth alot of it looks very fake like some of the slaps and the kicks. how charlie sheen though this was real i dont know. im sure they would be hitting and kicking her alot harder if it was. however the scenes with the pinching and the hot oil look very real. and the final needle in the eye scene is amazingly done and is probibly the only thing on film that has ever shocked me.@@@1 +This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).

The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).

Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.

Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.@@@0 +Wow, alot of reviews for the Devils Experiment are here. Wonderful. My name is Steve and I run Unearthed Films. We just started releasing the Guinea Pig films on DVD for North America. Now before you ask why am I writing a review? Instead ask why some people bash it. I'm writing this review because I love the Guinea Pig films. Why do I love em, it's because they go for the throat and they don't let go. I've seen it all. Almost every horror film known to man, Argento, Fulci, Bava, Buttgereit. from every underground cult sensation to every Hollywood blockbuster. I've seen it all and the films that have stuck in my head over the years was definitely the Guinea Pig films. Why because it doesn't try to hide the reason why we watch horror movies in the 1st place. This review is for the Devils Experiment. I find it devoid of story which is fine by me. Why do I watch horror films? So I can see blood and gore and the torture of people. The Devils Experiment not only delivers but that's all it is. Pure unadulterated violence. Yeah I like a story but sometimes I just want the gore and the Devils Experiment delivers ten fold. Why do people bash it. Cause they like a story, so that the torture and death of a person can be hidden behind a story. It make em feel better about themselves. We all want blood and gore. It's just really hard to justify it if it's not wrapped around a story. The Guinea Pig films have a historical meaning to them and they have created a definitive splash whenever they have been released.

I'm thrilled to be able to release one of the most famous horror series in the world. Maybe I shouldn't have written this review but then again maybe I should. My view is biased cause were releasing them but then again it's not. I've always told people to find them and to watch them way before I started Unearthed Films. Sure it's exploitive and over the top but isn't that why we watch horror films in the 1st place. The Devils Experiment is NOT for everybody. It's for thrill seekers and gorehounds only. If you think Jason movies and Freddy Krueger movies are awesome then stick to those. But if your on the next level and have seen it all then the Devils Experiment is for you. There is a reason why they haven't been released for over 17 years. They are wrong, disgusting and down right freaky and not something to watch with your mom, unless she is totally cool. Good luck, enjoy and never stop living your life.@@@1 +The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it.@@@0 +A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.

Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an "extreme" torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.

The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.

The actress who plays the victim of the "experiment" is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.

If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment.@@@1 +I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.@@@0 +My rating refers to the first 4 Seasons of Stargate SG-1 which are wonderfully fresh, creative and addicting. When the cast stepped through the gate, you never knew what lay on the other side! Starting around Season 5, the show took a different focus - still good, but different.

The series follows the adventures of a team of humans (and one alien) who regularly venture into a planetary transport device called the "Stargate". The backstory of the series is based on the characters and events of the movie "Stargate" in which the device is discovered during an archaeological dig in Egypt.

The episodes are light (innocent and easy to watch) and very creative. Many of the inventive stories could easily have been made into great sci-fi movies of their own. What happens next was always unpredictable.

The characters on which the show rests are also well-defined and brilliantly performed. Their tone is serious, but the dialog is flowered with incredible wit and humor. They are simply fun to watch.

Starting somewhere around Season 5, the series started to evolve into a continuing storyline based on fighting a single foe (the Goa'uld, then the Ori). The plots become more complex (a lot more political/strategic oriented) and interdependent. The characters were still as great as ever but the show was different in nature.

One thing that must be mentioned is to watch the episodes that commemorated the 100th and 200th episodes. They are simply can't-miss shows. They exhibit the creative and wildly humorous genius that carried the series through 10 seasons.

If you are a sci-fi fan, watch a few episodes of the first 4 Seasons and you'll likely be hooked. If you like evolving story lines between two opposing sides, you have 10 seasons of shows to look forward to.@@@1 +That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.

As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No.@@@0 +The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans!@@@1 +This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)@@@0 +First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions).

I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured)@@@1 +Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.

The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.

What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?@@@0 +Just the ultimate masterpiece in my opinion. Every line, every phrase, every picture is exactly in place and Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna are just THE cool shrink and the sleazy con-man, so well cast. 10 out of 10!@@@1 +Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...

I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...

Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop!@@@0 +"House of Games" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.

The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see.@@@1 +Yes, The Southern Star features a pretty forgettable title tune sung by that heavy set crooner Matt Monro. It pretty much establishes the tone for this bloated and rather dull feature, stunningly miscast with George Segal and Ursula Andress as an adventurous couple in search of a large diamond. Add in Harry Andrews (with a strange accent, no less) chasing an ostrich, tons of stock footage of wildlife, and poorly composed and dull photography by Raoul Coutard, and you end up with a thoroughly unexciting romp through the jungles of Senegal.@@@0 +Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.

Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!!@@@1 +The head of a common New York family, Jane Gail (as Mary Barton), works with her younger sister Ethel Grandin (as Loma Barton) at "Smyrner's Candy Store". After Ms. Grandin is abducted by dealers in the buying and selling of women as prostituted slaves, Ms. Gail and her policeman boyfriend Matt Moore (as Larry Burke) must rescue the virtue-threatened young woman.

"Traffic in Souls" has a reputation that is difficult to support - it isn't remarkably well done, and it doesn't show anything very unique in having a young woman's "virtue" threatened by sex traders. Perhaps, it can be supported as a film which dealt with the topic in a greater than customary length (claimed to have been ten reels, originally). The New York City location scenes are the main attraction, after all these years. The panning of the prisoners behind bars is memorable, because nothing else seems able to make the cameras move.

**** Traffic in Souls (11/24/13) George Loane Tucker ~ Jane Gail, Matt Moore, Ethel Grandin@@@0 +Unique movie about confused woman (Lindsay Crouse) who gets involved with sharp con men. Joe Mantegna gives an Oscar-caliber performance as the slickest of the group. Absolutely enchanting first hour, as Mantegna shows Crouse "the ropes" of his con games. Story line unravels a bit later on, but still stands as a unique portrayal of an innocent caught up in a dark world. Definitely worth a shot.@@@1 +Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it.@@@0 +House of games has a strong story where obsession and illusion play a big part. A psychologist offers to help a patient with his gambling debts and gets caught at the game.

Have you ever felt fascination for something that was both dangerous and wrong? Watch what happens if you pursue this urge and go all the way. Sit on the edge of your chair as tricksters are being tricked and victims turn into perpetrators. You're never sure of who is exactly who in this movie.

This is both a quality and a drawback of the script. As the movie ends you feel that the story lacks a bit of consistency. But all this is largely compensated by the excellent psychological development.

This is definitely one of the best movies about gambling.@@@1 +1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever…). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)…The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker.@@@0 +Plenty has been written about Mamet's "The House of Games"; most of it good. I decided to revisit the flick to see how it held up after 17 years and was surprised at how much I enjoyed viewing it again. The film's success and durability probably has much to do with two principal ingredients which are always fun on film; a good story and a good scam. Mamet manages to bring his signature moodiness and obvious histrionics to the film while scamming us, the audience, and the mark simultaneously. Then he explains the art of conning only to do it again, etc. all the while building the story. "The House of Games", now a freebie on cable, is worth a look for first timers and an okay rerun for Mamet fans. (B+)@@@1 +This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!@@@0 +This typical Mamet film delivers a quiet, evenly paced insight into what makes a confidence man (Joe Mantegna) good. Explored as a psychological study by a noted psychologist (Lindsay Crouse), it slowly pulls her into his world with the usual nasty consequences. The cast includes a number of the players found is several of Mamet's films (Steven Goldstein, Jack Wallace, Ricky Jay, Andy Potok, Allen Soule, William H. Macy), and they do their usual good job. I loved Lindsay Crouse in this film, and have often wondered why she didn't become a more noted player than she has become. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!

The movie proceeds at a slow pace, with flat dialog, yet it maintains a level of tension throughout which logically leads to the bang-up ending. You'd expect a real let down at the ending, but I found it uplifting and satisfying. I love this movie!@@@1 +Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!@@@0 +In the spirit of the classic "The Sting", this movie hits where it truly hurts... in the heart! A prim, proper female psychiatrist, hungry for adventure, meets up with the dirtiest and rottenest of scoundrals. The vulnerable doctor falls for the career badman, and begs to be involved in his operation. While the movie moves kind of "slow", it's climax and ending are stunning! You'll especially enjoy how the doctor "forgives herself"!@@@1 +this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.@@@0 +I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.

The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.

RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.

There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.

'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.

The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.

The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.

There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.

I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'.@@@1 +Wow. I do not think I have ever seen a movie with so many great actors that had such a pivotal role so miscast. Justin Timberlake is perhaps the single worst actor to land a bigtime role in a movie with the star power and money behind it that Edison had.

His acting was PAINFUL to observe. The story was OK and all the other characters were played by professional actors, heck, even LL Cool J was fine since he has had numerous small parts to cut his teeth on. How the director and movie company figured that Timberlake was ready for this role there is no way to comprehend.

His character ruins the entire experience since every time he is on screen you are actually rooting for the corrupt cops to cap his sorry ass, and he is supposed to be the hero... I would not waste money on this one at the theater or on video. MAYBE if you have HBO and have NOTHING else to do at 2am on a Saturday night and you are drunk and stoned, this may be OK.

Watching Timberlake in this role was like watching a human 'Kermit the Frog' act in a Hollywood Blockbuster, just didn't work at all.@@@0 +A film destined to be on late-night TV long after the present instant "money-makers" have long been forgotten. Perhaps a little too subtle for today's youngsters, but in time they'll grow into an appreciation of this movie.@@@1 +"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.

Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.

Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...

Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.

No. Really.

This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?

If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.

If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.@@@0 +This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended!@@@1 +This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.@@@0 +Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.

When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.

The patient was in on the con from the beginning.

Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.

There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience.@@@1 +When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.

Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!@@@0 +I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride.@@@1 +When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really… The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.@@@0 +SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.@@@1 +In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")@@@0 +Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance.@@@1 +The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'@@@0 +Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited.@@@1 +So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.@@@0 +This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.@@@1 +I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.@@@0 +"House Of Games" is definitely not without its flaws- plot holes, stiff acting, final scenes- but they do little to detract from the fun of watching a thriller that so methodically messes with your head. "House Of Games" does almost everything a good thriller is supposed to do. Of course, this is not a huge feat given the fact that we're dealing with the the world of confidence men and the cons they perpetrate. So it stands to reason that we never really know what's going on, even though we think that we do. But that's what makes the film worthwhile for those who are game; a film for which repeated viewings are indulgences instead if necessities.

It has a definite Hitchcock slant to it. The film draws on some similar themes found his 1964 effort "Marnie", considered a misfire when released but now regarded as one of the Master's more thought-provoking works. One could easily consider the idea of Lindsay Crouse's character being the same as Tippi Hedrin's...ten year later perhaps. Both are strong-willed loners, both with compulsive behaviors which compel them to walk too close to the shark pool. As Crouse's repressed, up-tight character says, "What's life without adventure?" Put your Reality Check on a low setting and enjoy swimming with the sharks!@@@1 +the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.@@@0 +Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****@@@1 +This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too.

The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).

Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).@@@0 +I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...

I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.

The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.

The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.

After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.

EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.@@@1 +Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.

You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me.

Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".

After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work.

LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script.

Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"

In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.@@@0 +House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.

I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.

Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.

There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....

House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.

In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie.@@@1 +Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.@@@0 +Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***@@@1 +Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.@@@0 +If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.@@@1 +I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.

I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.@@@0 +House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.@@@1 +I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.)

The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).

The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.

This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)

There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.

Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)@@@0 +`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10@@@1 +Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).@@@0 +David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.@@@1 +Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.

I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.

For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10@@@0 +This movie is amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, "Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?" and my humble addition, "May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out."@@@1 +Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.

This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.

Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker)

My Grade: F

Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"@@@0 +This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.@@@1 +This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.@@@0 +I absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :)@@@1 +First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.

I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.

There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.

The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.

Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.@@@0 +WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10.@@@1 +This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.

It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.

Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.@@@0 +I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.

though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!@@@1 +I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.

Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.

However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.

There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.

But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.

The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).

Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent "Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the "awarded films" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.

Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the "hey mom - look how funny I am" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.

I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.

The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.

Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!!@@@1 +I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)@@@0 +After a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on "THE DAILY SHOW!"

I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.

My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.

My Grade:

7 out of 10@@@1 +80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.@@@0 +Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.

On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.@@@1 +It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.

Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.

Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.

It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.@@@0 +`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good@@@1 +My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.@@@0 +Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.@@@1 +Nothing happens.

Then characters with no personality don't develop.

Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.

There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing!

There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.

--PolarisDiB@@@0 +Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth.@@@1 +There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.

It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.

The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers.@@@0 +Fairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as "God") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B@@@1 +It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.

I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.

Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette.

With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.

There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.

After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.@@@0 +Well not actually. This movie is very entertaining though. Went and saw it with the girlfriend last night and had to use the "I think there might be something in my eye" routine. The movie is a great combination of comedy and typical romance. Jim Carey is superb as a down on his luck reporter who is given the power to change himself and the city in which he resides. In fact all the characters are great. The movie is not overly funny or sappy, good flick to go see with the wife.

All in All 8/10....note * I am not an easy grader. Thats all from BigV over and out!@@@1 +When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.

This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.

The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.@@@0 +I for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.

Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.

I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.

I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.

I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.

A funny film.@@@1 +Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark.

Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.

That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.@@@0 +I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.@@@1 +I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.@@@0 +I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10!

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief!

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.@@@1 +My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.@@@0 +I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...@@@1 +My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:

1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.

Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.

News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.

DO NOT WATCH@@@0 +A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see.@@@1 +I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.

My rating: 8/10@@@1 +It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).@@@0 +This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10.@@@1 +Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.

All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!

No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10@@@1 +***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.

Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......

David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.

I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.@@@0 +"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.

*** out of ****@@@1 +here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.@@@0 +If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!@@@1 +As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.@@@0 +As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.@@@1 +After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!@@@0 +I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).@@@1 +The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.@@@0 +Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.@@@1 +This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.@@@0 +Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.

If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.

Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.

This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.

On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).@@@1 +"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.

The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained.

Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.@@@0 +I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.

And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.

To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you.@@@1 +I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.@@@0 +Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.

Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.

Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.

Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.

Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.

Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.

Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.

Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.

So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.

Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)@@@1 +Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic?

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 +Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.

Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.

Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.

One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.

Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.

Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.

Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.

The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.

Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.@@@1 +SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.

The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC@@@0 +As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!@@@1 +As an impressionable 10 year old, I liked the "love conquers all" philosophy of the 70s sitcom "Bridget Loves Bernie." I did understand the controversy, which was about the romantic complications between a Jewish cab driver (David Birney) and an Irish Catholic school teacher (Meredith Baxter) and both sets of parents (Harold J. Stone and Bibi Osterwald as Bernie's parents; Audra Lindley and David Doyle as Bridget's parents) who have issues with the young couple's interfaith marriage.

Looking at the show now with years of personal life experiences, I am amazed that the show was even a success for one, albeit, highly-rated season. Created by veteran TV writer Bernard Slade, who a few years after the show's cancellation would write the successful play "Same Time, Next Year", "Bridget Loves Bernie" was a very light, superficial comedy that collapsed under its own airy weight.

There was no denying the real-life chemistry between Birney and Baxter. But, in later years, both actors have shown that they are better actors in other projects (Birney in his short-lived role in "St. Elsewhere" and Baxter in "Family" and "Family Ties"). Here, they were trying to breathe life in a show that needed a much gritter comic edge, which might have given the complications more depth to a very controversial subject.

The show aired Saturday nights between two CBS powerhouses: "All in the Family" and "Mary Tyler Moore". Both of those shows were smart, funny and had enough of an edge (more so on the former that the latter) that kept my interest in the situation and the characters. "Bridget Loves Bernie" was not very smart and only had some occasional chuckles.

This was another example of a show that really was not as good as I remembered.@@@0 +China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.

China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?

If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?

Recommended.@@@1 +This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.@@@0 +This one and "Her Pilgrim Soul" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie "Il Mare" (later remade into "The Lake House". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film.@@@1 +As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.

THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.

The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.

Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.

I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.@@@0 +This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.@@@1 +I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.

Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.

2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.@@@0 +Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.@@@1 +To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.@@@0 +You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.@@@1 +Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.

The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.

I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.

Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.

It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.

Bring back the old format.@@@0 +It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.

Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.

The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.

The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.

One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.

He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.

The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.

The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.

When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.

The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.

From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.

I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.

Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.

And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.

And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE.@@@1 +Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.@@@0 +Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)@@@1 +Unlike many, I don't find the premise or theme of this show the least bit offensive. Its execution, however, is another matter entirely. Like so many B-minus movies, all the decent gags appear to have been spliced into the trailers. For most of the 22-or-so minutes we sit in waning anticipation any morsel of real humor. Or at least something to keep one from fidgeting with the remote or counting carpet fibers. With a couple of exceptions the acting is awful; the comical over-emoting and gesticulating of some cast members might be well suited to a late-night infomercial, but not a primetime sitcom (even a Canadian one.) Notwithstanding the admittedly original cultural angle, I cannot help but think this is mainly a misfired shot by the CBC to replicate the success of Corner Gas. Unfortunately, they got the tone -- and the script -- completely wrong for the prairies. The final insult is that they apparently couldn't even afford to have the location work done in an actual small town (Why? are they so hard to find in Saskatchewan?) Did they think the audience would be fooled by the downtown Regina exteriors? As a proud Canadian I hope this thing goes away soon, and that the rest of the world, primed by the CBC's publicists, quickly forgets this colossal embarrassment of a sitcom.@@@0 +This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there?

The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen.

It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1.

That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.

The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team.

Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!@@@1 +This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.@@@0 +***Possible spoilers***

I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.

Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!@@@1 +I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?@@@0 +Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.

In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.@@@1 +This show is terrible, the jokes are all terrible and just getting worse and worse. I am one of those people who was never a big fan of Corner Gas but at least I liked it at first until it got into a rut around season two, all the jokes had been played out and the characters had nothing to them. Well at least Corner Gas was good at first, Little Mosque on the Prairie is typically awful bland CBC comedy that had nothing going for it from episode 1. Who are the people who are watching this show anyway, I am being honest is it old people or maybe just people who actually live on the prairies? Maybe the jokes are for them and they work there? I don't know a single person who likes this show and can't stand it myself, the jokes are totally predictable and the characters are even less developed than in Corner Gas. Hopefully it won't last much longer because all the success this show has had seems to me to be based entirely on the premise of this show being Muslim which is different and could/should have led to a great show.@@@0 +The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.@@@1 +If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.@@@0 +This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner.@@@1 +I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).

it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.

I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!@@@0 +Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10@@@1 +Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.@@@0 +I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.@@@1 +This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.@@@0 +We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)

This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.

It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold.@@@1 +Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.

Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.

Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.

And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).

And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.

And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.

Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.

Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.@@@0 +Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).@@@1 +This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.@@@0 +The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.@@@1 +I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.

Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.@@@0 +Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.@@@1 +I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(@@@0 +A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.

Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited@@@1 +While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!@@@0 +This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!

The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.

The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!

Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively.@@@1 +Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.@@@0 +Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.@@@1 +God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!@@@0 +Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....

The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.

Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.@@@1 +Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z@@@0 +This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!@@@1 +What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz@@@0 +Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.@@@1 +A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."

3/10@@@0 +The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.

Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.

If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film.@@@1 +Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.

The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.

Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.

3 out of 10 limping killers@@@0 +This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.@@@1 +I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.

No way could I recommend this mess.@@@0 +This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .@@@1 +Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.@@@0 +Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good.

What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.

But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable.

But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!@@@1 +This movie is just plain dumb.

From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.

Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.

Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.

To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.@@@0 +I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.

So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream…" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.

Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls.

So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.

His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all!

RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.

Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.

So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.

There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-—and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.

Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.

------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.@@@1 +How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!@@@0 +Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff@@@1 +I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox@@@0 +Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.@@@1 +This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.@@@0 +A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.@@@1 +I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.@@@0 +Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this.@@@1 +Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.@@@0 +The "Amazing Mr. Williams" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point.@@@1 +The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".@@@0 +Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.

Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.

Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.

As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.

Entertaining if a little on the long side.

One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.@@@1 +Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.@@@0 +The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed.@@@1 +By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.@@@0 +What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.

It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.

Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.

The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best.@@@1 +You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.

The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.

Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.

Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.

The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.

The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!@@@0 +Delightful minor film, juggling comedy and detective, romance and drama genres as nimbly as Lt Kenny Williams (Melvyn Douglas) balances his devotion to his girl Maxine Carroll (Joan Blondell) and his duty to the force as an ace detective.

This hodge-podge may not appeal to all viewers today, but in its day, it had something to offer every member of the movie-going family, and the resolution to the rather tired feeling-versus-duty plot is original and refreshing, and well worth the wait.

"The Amazing Mr. Williams" contains what must be among the most outrageous blind dates in film history, and its bright comic repartee sparkles. Ludicrously frocked, Melvyn Douglas delivers some of the best lines: "I'd walk down Main Street in a Turkish towel before I'd let any woman control my life!" And the effervescent Joan Blondell lets her barbs fly with typical aplomb: "Good grief! You look like my Aunt Nellie!'

The crime-solving here is standard fare, although a fine cast of character actors helps bring the material to life.

From today's vantage point, "The Amazing Mr. Williams" is perhaps most interesting for its insightful commentary on gender as a socially defined construct, all the more malleable for its seemingly rigid boundaries. While much of the gender commentary takes place in a superficial battle of the sexes, at times it is both subtle and penetrating, playing out not only in some of the finer details of the film, but in the battle of genres that reaches its culmination in the final scene.@@@1 +I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character.

Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed.

But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.

I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life.

One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.

It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.

Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.@@@0 +This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.@@@1 +I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.@@@0 +This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking.@@@1 +First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.@@@0 +I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.@@@1 +After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!@@@0 +I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this.@@@1 +We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering.

The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.

Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become…a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).

The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil.

I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.

Score: 0.1/10 (If I could)

Pros:

They got the names right.

Cons:

It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.@@@0 +When the Chamberlain family is camping near Ayers Rock, Australia, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) sees her baby being dragged out of their tent by a dingo and then begins an ordeal that no one should have to experience. For it seems like the dingo story is not believed by the public or the press, and the whole thing turns into a circus. Lindy doesn't help matters either because she won't play to the jury or courtroom, she's only herself, and she's a tough nut to crack, so of course everyone thinks she's guilty because there's a piece of evidence that hasn't come to light. Sam Neill is excellent as Michael Chamberlain, a Seventh-Day adventist pastor, who has doubts about his faith and perhaps about his wife. It's good (or bad) to see that people are just as prejudiced and stupid elsewhere as they are in the States too, because the Australian public doesn't believe the story and the media only fans the flames. Eventually, Lindy is found guilty and sent to prison for a life of hard labor, but years later, a missing piece of evidence shows up and she's freed, but not until after the family's life is basically ruined. A heart-breaking story, very well done, a bit long but well worth seeing. 8 out of 10.@@@1 +This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.@@@0 +Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.

A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.

Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.

This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.

Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.

You will remember this movie for many years.

See it!@@@1 +I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.@@@0 +This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.

The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.

'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real.

Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.@@@1 +I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".

How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.

The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.

A wrinkle in time:*/****@@@0 +A CRY IN THE DARK

A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.

Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.

The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.

While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.

The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.

The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.

The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.

In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.

More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.

... A ...@@@1 +I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.

It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.

There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.

The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.@@@0 +Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.@@@1 +I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen.

As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary!

I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created!

Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed?

I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task!@@@0 +In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.

Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.

Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.

Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.

The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.

Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.

For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."

Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video

Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.

Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.

Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.

Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.

Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.

Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video@@@1 +(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.

@@@0 +I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.

When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.

The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.

Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.

She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...

Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.

This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public.@@@1 +I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!@@@0 +I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.

Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.@@@1 +I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.

A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.

The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.@@@0 +Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B@@@1 +The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.@@@0 +This movie was nominated for best picture but lost out to Casablanca but Paul Lukas beat out Humphrey Bogart for best actor. I don't see why Lucile Watson was nominated for best supporting actor, i just don't think she did a very good job. Bette Davis and Paul Lukas and their three kids are leaving Mexico and coming into the United States in the first scene of the movie. They are going by train to Davis's relatives house. Davis and Lukas were in the underground to stop the Nazis so they are very tired and need rest. But when they arrive home, their is a Nazi living there and their's not much either can do about it. It turns out the Nazi only cares about money and is willing to make a deal with Lukas. Their is more to the plot but you can find that out for yourself.@@@1 +Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.

"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.@@@0 +This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.

One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.

The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.

(Spoiler warning!)

I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.

I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well.@@@1 +I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.

@@@0 +Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10@@@1 +This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.@@@0 +Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.

Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.

This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.@@@1 +Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.@@@0 +Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.@@@1 +I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.@@@0 +Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media.@@@1 +The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.@@@0 +This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.

The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.

I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.

8/10@@@1 +Awful. This thriller should have buried. What a piece of crap. Terrible writing, characters are less than believable. Horrible Schlock!! Stick some B- stars in a terribly written POS to try and give it a little credit, but it fails miserably. If I didn't have to write ten lines about this movie I would have given it a word word review, it starts with 'sh' and ends with 'it'.

Horrible ending, retarded. Who writes this crap. The ending of this film is so contrived, weak it's as if they had no idea what to do with this story line, or they just ran out of money. Most likely due to the number of cameos in this movie. It's a good thing that these actors are on the way out, because this would be a career killer. Good thing for them that hardly anyone will see it. At least no one important, like future investors. It could have ended a thousand different ways, but as it is, I feel cheated out of my precious time.

Don't bother with this one, you will feel like you wasted time you can never get back.@@@0 +An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld."@@@1 +These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.@@@0 +When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.@@@1 +This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them.

The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.

ejames6342@@@0 +Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep.@@@1 +This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".@@@0 +"A Cry in the Dark" is a masterful piece of cinema, haunting, and incredibly though provoking. The true story of Lindy Chamberland, who, in 1980, witnessed a horrific sight, seeing her 3-month-old baby being brutally taken from their family's tent, while camping on the Austrailian outback. Azaria (the baby) was never seen again, and the result of her horrendous disappearance caused a true life frenzy all around the world. Meryl Streep does immaculate justice to the role of Lindy, as she always does. But the one thing that helps "A Cry in the Dark" never fall flat is the brilliant direction. A truly inspired and accurate outlook on this baffeling case, tears are brought to the eyes. The concept is nothing less then terrifying, and afterwards you are left haunted, but also inspired.@@@1 +As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.@@@0 +Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.@@@1 +Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.@@@0 +Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).

The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.

Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).

Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.

Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.@@@1 +I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.@@@0 +This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.@@@1 +Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 +ROLL is a wonderful little film. Toby Malone plays an 18 year old kid (very well acted, by the way) who is into soccer. Malone's cousin takes him out the night before his big game on an adventure with many twists and turns involving two gym bags, a drug lord, some tough bikers, some cops, and some prostitutes ... and the movie keeps us guessing as to which characters are on which side of the law, what the contents of either gym bag is, and even what gender a key biker is. Parts of it reminded me of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING Barrels.

For me, ROLL reinforced three opinions that I already held before seeing ROLL. Those opinions are: 1. I really want to visit Australia one day. The country and cities are beautiful and it looks like such a cool place for a vacation.

2. Some of the best filmmakers in the are Australian. The cinematography in ROLL was especially impressive. I loved the stylized colors and lighting in many of the scenes.

3. Australian women are HOT!@@@1 +I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".

Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.@@@0 +Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.

But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.

Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.

Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.@@@1 +This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.@@@0 +I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.

Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world.

I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.

Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.

One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.

This Rocks 'n' Rolls@@@1 +A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)

@@@0 +A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour.@@@1 +This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10@@@0 +I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10@@@1 +I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.@@@0 +A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.

Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.

Highly recommended.@@@1 +Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."@@@0 +This film is an hour or so of good entertainment and has some genuinely funny moments. I loved the character of Matt, and also Tiny. They seemed the most engaging and funny characters, and certainly the most interesting. Matt is very good (as is his no good cousin), and the police woman and the blonde biker woman provide some welcome eye candy. I must say I saw striking similarities between Matt and another Aussie actor, Eric Bana. My personal favourite part was the brothel scene, loved that. Overall, I liked the film and it'll get about an 8 rating. The penalty however, I was disappointed in. It was a side foot curl, rather than the appropriate laces blast.

I am of course kidding. :)@@@1 +While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.@@@0 +Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10@@@1 +Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.@@@0 +"A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.@@@1 +That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.

First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.

I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...

Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.

What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.

Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.

What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...

In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.@@@0 +in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...@@@1 +I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.@@@0 +The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD.@@@1 +Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.@@@0 +As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.

Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html@@@1 +The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives.

Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster.@@@0 +I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it.

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video?@@@1 +This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?@@@0 +Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.@@@1 +..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.

Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.

Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.

Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.

Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.

Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.@@@0 +It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!!@@@1 +At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.

Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.@@@0 +what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is.@@@1 +This could have been interesting – a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family – but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.

The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department – a giant crab attack is merely silly – as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup!

At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there – eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created – leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster – tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.@@@0 +Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.@@@1 +Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.@@@0 +I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.

It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.

And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.

While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.

And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?

Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!@@@1 +From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.@@@0 +I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA!@@@1 +Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.

The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.

No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.

Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.

Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.

BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.@@@0 +Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.

I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.

I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.

I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.@@@1 +Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.

Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.

What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.

I know I didn't.

Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.@@@0 +Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.

Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).

In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.

Stars: **** (excellent)@@@1 +I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.

************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.

Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.

Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.

I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.

These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.

Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer.

Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?

I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************

But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'@@@0 +It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library!@@@1 +I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.

This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.

B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve.

The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.

(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?

Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those…@@@0 +This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true.@@@1 +I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.

First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.

The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.

Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.

I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.

This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.@@@0 +Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!)@@@1 +Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.@@@0 +A magical journey concocted by Alexander Korda and Michael Powell. These two TITANS of the British cinema have mixed some fabulous ingredients to produce a movie masterpiece! Some of the most ravishing early Technicolor, a SUBLIME and shimmering Miklos Rozsa musical score along with the youthful exuberance of Sabu, the theatrical and malevolent villainy of Conrad Veidt and the exquisite beauty and voice of June Duprez as the princess all work wonderfully well. Miles Malleson who plays Duprez father, the Sultan of Basra, also wrote the perfect screenplay which is appropriately grandiose. DON'T MISS THIS ONE! Since posting the above comments, I have obtained the recently released DVD and can honestly say I'd never seen the picture properly until viewing this DVD version-The clarity and resolution is so precise and the colors are so vivid that I was stunned-This amazing classic can be watched time an again and never fails to charm and delight the viewer. Again, A MUST SEE!@@@1 +With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.@@@0 +A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10.@@@1 +Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.@@@0 +This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.

For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.

The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.

The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!

John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15–year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.

Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable.@@@1 +Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.@@@0 +The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.

According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.

Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.

The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.

The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser.

Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.

The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.@@@1 +Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.@@@0 +Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.

If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.

I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.

Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie.@@@1 +There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?@@@0 +This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. "Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?" Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.

I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys.

It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, "Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it." The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking "some fun, and adventure at last!"@@@1 +One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.@@@0 +I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so.@@@1 +This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.

Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).

This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).

Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.@@@0 +when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D@@@1 +Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another.

The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?

I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.@@@0 +Probably the finest fantasy film ever made. Sumptuous colour, spectacular sets, incredible, spot-on Miklos Rosza musical score that is perfect for each scene and mood. Acting is superb as well in what could have been stiff and pretentious in lesser hands, but here the poetic dialog is deftly, sensitively spoken (the humour is subtle and delightful as well).

Doubtless Spielberg and Lucas were enthralled by this one. Along with "The Four Feathers" (1939), one of the two finest motion pictures released by Alexander Korda and London Films---and one of the finest motion pictures ever made.

A true, compelling classic!@@@1 +Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.

Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.

Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.@@@0 +Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old.@@@1 +Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!

The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.

What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.

But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.

So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.@@@0 +I first saw Thief as a child which makes me almost as old as the Jinn I guess. As any kid would be, I was delighted with the imagination, inventiveness and energy of the film. Several years later, I realized how much of the satire and wit of the script I had missed on that first viewing. I have never passed up an opportunity to watch it throughout the intervening years. In addition to the script, the production transcends the fantasy genre. This is Korda, the storyteller at his very best. When you see Thief as a child you know that you`ve had a great time. When you see Thief as an adult you know that you`ve seen a masterpiece. It`s as timeless as the story it treats. An amazing work.

Thomas McCarthy@@@1 +Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.@@@0 +This is an Oriental fantasy about ¨thousand and one Arabian nights¨ plenty of incredible adventures, fantasy witchery and wizardly. The malignant vizier Jaffar (magnificently played by Conrad Veidt)with powerful magic faculties imprisons the prince Ahamad of Bagdad(attractive John Justin)who loses his throne, then he escapes thanks a little thief named Abu(sympathetic Sabu). They arrive Basora where Ahamad and the princess(gorgeous June Duprez) fall in love. But prince and thief are haunted by Jaffar , Ahamd is turned blind and Abu is become a dog. The story accumulates several fantastic ingredients such as transformation of the starring, a flying mechanic horse, magic bow, flying carpet and of course the colossal genie(overacting performed by Rex Ingram) who gives three wishes to Sabu , the magic eye, the figure of goddess Kali with several hands, among others.

This remarkable picture ranks as one of the finest fantastic films of all time. Produced by London Fim's Alexander Korda and directed by the definitively credited Ludwing Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelan with a stunning screenplay by Lajos Biro and Miles Malleson also dialogs writer and actor as Sultan fond to mechanic games. The WWII outbreak caused the paralyzing shooting, then the three Korda brothers and collaborators traveled USA continuing there the filming in especial on Grand Cannon Colorado.The splendid visual and glimmer Technicolor cinematography , setting and FX provoked the achieving three Oscars : Production design by William Cameron Menzies and Vincent Korda ,Cinematography by George Perinal and Special effects by Osmond Borradaile though today are dated and is urgent a necessary remastering because the colors are worn-out. Furthermore one nomination for the evocative and oriental musical score by Miklos Rozsa. This vivid tale with immense doses of imagination will like to fantasy fans and cinema classic buffs@@@1 +Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.@@@0 +Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.

It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.

Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people.@@@1 +This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.@@@0 +This film, was one of my childhood favorites and I must say that, unlike some other films I liked in that period The Thief of Bagdad has held on to it's quality while I grew up. This is not merely a film to be enjoyed by children, it can be watched and enjoyed by adults as well. The only drawback there is, is that one can not see past the ‘bad' effects (compared to the effects nowadays) like one could when one was a child. I remembered nothing of those effects, of course it had been about ten years since I'd seen this film, when I was about eleven years old. Who then watches effects? One only seeks good stories and entertainment and this is exactly what this film provides. In my mind this film is one of the first great adventure films of the 20th century. Coming to think of it I feel like the Indiana Jones films are quite a like this film. There is comedy, romance and adventure all in one, which creates a wonderful mixture that will capture you from the beginning until the end and although the film is old and the music and style of the films is clearly not modern, it succeeds in not being dusty and old. All of that is mainly due to the great story, the good directing and the good acting performances of the actors. In that department Sabu (as Abu) and Conrad Veidt (as Jaffar) stand out, providing the comedic and the chilling elements of the film for the most part. Great film and although an 'oldie', definitely a ‘goldie'. I hope someone has the brain and guts to release this one on DVD someday.

8 out of 10@@@1 +The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".

This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.

**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago@@@0 +Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.

As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.

Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.

The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.

Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.

The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.

*************************

Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age.@@@1 +Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.

Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids???

Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute.

On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.

I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.

I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.@@@0 +The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over.@@@1 +I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.@@@0 +I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".

It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.

10/10@@@1 +If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.@@@0 +-The movie tells the tale of a prince whose life is wonderful, but after an evil wizard tells him to go into town disguised as a beggar the wizard then locks up the prince and soon becomes the shadow ruler of Baghdad. the jailed prince meets a thief called Abu who helps him escape the jail and head to a town called Basra where he meets a princess who he falls madly in love with, but unbeknown to him the evil wizard Jafa is also in love with the princess and tries to convince her father to allow him to marry her. Jafa soon learns that the prince is trying to win the girls heart so he makes him blind and turns Abu into a dog. This leads to the prince and Abu going off on an adventure to find a way to defeat Jafa, restore peace to Baghdad and marry the princess. during their journey they encounter everything from sarcastic Genies that takes Abu on a flight through the clouds, a giant spider that's really hungry, and a flying horse that probably gives birth to one of the most beautiful sequence these old eyes of mine have ever seen.

-This is a pure fantasy movie from start to finish it has flying horses, genies, flying carpets, and wizards that can actually do magic instead of just hit people with their staffs. It doesn't have any cheesy moments and the love story isn't a waste of time. The production designs are just stunning in this movie. From the palaces to the different dangerous traps that the heroes encounter. Even though this movie is over 40 years old, the production design is far better than most of the crap that gets tacked on in today's cinema. The music and songs are also well done. Anyone who sees it will no doubt hail, "I want to be a sailor sailing on the seas" as one of the great musical moments in movies. I'm usually not a huge fan of singing in movies since I find them about as enjoyable as doing my taxes but I'll be more than happy to make an exception for this movie.

-What sells the movie for me is the sheer fact that you get to see things you don't see in everyday life which is also the same reason why I love stuff like "Two Towers" and "Silent Hill". Way before today's modern fantasy movie came along with their realistic CGI to blow our minds there was this movie which blew your mind without having green screen scattered all over the place. One of my favorite shots in "Two Towers" is the one where we see the trolls opening the Black Gates, the main appeal of that shot for me was seeing these great fantasy beings doing what is essentially manual labor, and that's what I love about the Genie and other creatures in the movie. They're just there trying to make a living just like everyone else which gives them a real feel even though they're all just fantasy beings.

-It's literally impossible to watch this movie and not notice where the makers of "Aladdin" got their inspiration. The characters from this movie are pretty much the same characters in that movie from the talkative Genie right down to the flying carpet. It's not an entirely bad thing in my eyes since it's nice to know that I'm not the only one on the planet that has a deep passionate love for this amazing movie. I first saw this as a kid in the motherland and thought it was the greatest thing in the world and upon watching it again last week I still think it's amazing. That's a true testament that a great movie can withstand the test of time. Sure, the effects look a wee bit outdated and cheesy but it was made way back in the 40's so give it a break. Not everything looks outdated though since most of the stuff can still hold its own today when scrutinized under today's standard.

-If you ever wanted to see a live action version of "Aladdin" then you should get your wish with this but the angry cynical bunch will probably do good in avoiding this since this won't be their cup of tea.@@@1 +As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?@@@0 +Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.@@@1 +I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.

This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.

Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.@@@0 +The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.

..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making!@@@1 +This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.

I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.

Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".

In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.

There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.@@@0 +An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time.@@@1 +It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.

I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.@@@0 +The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.@@@1 +this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type

they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,

Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get

as always

jay harris@@@0 +I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!@@@1 +There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!@@@0 +I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as "The Wonder Show of the Century!" Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only "Extras" are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD.@@@1 +This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.@@@0 +Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.@@@1 +2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.

I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.

I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.

This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.

You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.

In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.

Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.

Not that anything else was really working anyway.

The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.@@@0 +Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way.@@@1 +Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.

I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.@@@0 +"The Thief of Bagdad" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!@@@1 +This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.

Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!

Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.

If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.

This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.

IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.

Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.

Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.

Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.

Don't say you weren't warned.@@@0 +The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.

No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.

Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.

Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)

Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."

This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.

"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.

9/10.@@@1 +THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!

This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).@@@0 +I have to agree with MR. Caruso Jr Lanza,s was the finest voice god had to offer if only he could have found the courage to go for broke leave Hollywood and head for the opera he could have been the American Caruso everyone says he could have been but in any case he is a fantastic introduction to the art form no bones about it and if thats the way its gonna be so be it. see the film you'll see why Mr Lanza still come up in discussion even in my house. Someone says Pavarotti i say MARIO LANZA.As for the film itself when will it be on DVD they must have it restored and VHS isn't good enough but this should also be the only Lanza film put on DVD the others are down right bad and boring .@@@1 +Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:

1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.

The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".

If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.

Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...@@@0 +Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.

The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.

Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.

Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.

Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.

The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background.

His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.

Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.

Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.

Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca.

Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely.@@@1 +How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.

Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.

It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...

It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.

It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...

And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.@@@0 +The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.@@@1 +OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.@@@0 +This is a most handsome film. The color photography is beautiful as it shows the lavishness of the Metropolitan Opera House in brilliant color. Other indoor scenes at various mansions, etc are equally brilliant. As for the music, what more can be said other than that Lanza's voice was at its' peak as he sang so many of the worlds' best known and beloved arias. The marvelous Dorothy Kirsten is also a joy as her soprano voice blends with that of Lanza in delightful harmony. Of course, Hollywood took their customary liberties with the life story of Caruso. There is precious little in the story line that relates to actual events. For example, the facts relating to his death are totally fabricated and bear no relationship to the truth. There are some very good web sites that tell the true story of Caruso and contain several pictures of him. These web sites can be located by using any good search engine. There are also several books available concerning his life history. But, the fictional story line does nothing to mar this beautiful film. The voices of Lanza, Kirsten, and the chorus members are the real stars of this movie. Enjoy, I know that I sure did.@@@1 +I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)@@@0 +Mario Lanza, of course, is "The Great Caruso" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.

The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from "Lucia" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.

In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in "Girl of the Golden West," There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.

Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during "L'Elisir d'amore" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen "suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband," that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.

Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film "Match Point" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in "The Great Caruso" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.

Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same.@@@1 +Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend@@@0 +Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!@@@1 +so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.@@@0 +Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso.

But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.

And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth.

To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film.

His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.

When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.

What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.

Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.

Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.

If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso.@@@1 +i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you@@@0 +THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.@@@1 +This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting.

Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me.

This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.@@@0 +I like it because of my recent personal experience. Especially the ideas that everyone is free and that everything is finite. The characters in the firm did not really enjoy their "real" lives, but they did enjoy themselves, i.e. what they were. The movie did a good job making this simple day a good memory. A good memory includes not only romantic feelings about a beautiful stranger and a beautiful European city, but definitely about the deeper discussion about their values of life. Many movies are like this in terms of discussion of the definitions of life or love or relationships or current problems in life or some sort of those. Before Sunrise dealt with it in a nice way, which makes the viewer pause and think and adjust her breath and go on watching the film. Before Sunrise did not try to instill a specific thought into your head. It just encouraged you to think about some issues in daily life and gave you some alternative possibilities. This made the conversations between the characters interesting, not just typical whining complaints or flowing dumb ideas. You would be still thinking about those issues for yourself and curious about the next line of the story. The end was not quite important after all. You could got something out of it and feel something good or positive about yourself after the movie. Movies are supposed to be enjoyable. This is an enjoyable movie and worth of your time to watch it. I am on a journey too. The movie somehow represented some part of me and answered some of my questions.@@@1 +I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.@@@0 +Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, "Before Sunrise" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.@@@1 +Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.@@@0 +Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart.@@@1 +Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.@@@0 +I'm not usually a fan of strictly romantic movies but heard this was good. I was stunned. Easily the most romantic thing I've ever seen in my life. Stunning. Brilliant, sweet, funny and full of heart. The chemistry is flawless as is the writing and directing.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are so natural and sweet together you really think they're a couple.

The movies grabs you right away and doesn't let go. You can't look away nor can you stop listening to them. Even the little moments just melt your heart.

This has jumped into the ranks of one of my favourite ever. A masterpiece.@@@1 +The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.@@@0 +An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.@@@1 +First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.

Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.

Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.

What a sad waste.@@@0 +I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.@@@1 +There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.

That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.

Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.

What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.

Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.

All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.@@@0 +i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa "like dancing about architecture". it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.

10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................@@@1 +I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.

And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!

The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.

1 out of 10.@@@0 +I must admit that at the beginning, I was sort of reticent about watching this movie. I thought it was this stupid, little, romantic film about a French woman who meets in the train an American and decides to visit Vienna with him. I was not actually enchanted about this kind of script, since it continued to make me believe that it is just a movie. Still, I watched it! And I was amazed..."Before Sunrise" is one of the few films who dare to talk in a rather philosophical way, wondering about the fact that in the moment of our birth, we are sentenced to death, or that it is a middling idea that fact that a couple should rest together for eternity, or that, we, humans, can afford sometimes to live in fairy-tales.

The ending was wonderfully chosen (we do not know if they will meet again in six months, at six o'clock, in Vienna's station) -in our optimism, we sincerely hope so. The actors acted in a very good manner, so, that, I began to believe that I, myself could live a love-story just like this.@@@1 +Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.@@@0 +American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.

At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.

Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.

Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.

One of the best romance movies. 9/10@@@1 +The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.@@@0 +the most amazing combination of love and psyche of two young people.presented in the most sublime manner and definitely touches your heart.a rare combination where the sequel surpasses the prequel in both storytelling and intensity of emotions.the movie re affirms your faith in love and pain of separation. the joy of seeing your most beloved is unparalleled and anything can be sacrificed. Ethan and Julie have essayed eternal characters with such simplicity that gives the movie a sheer joy and love to watch. A must see movie for all the people who believe in true love. by far the most romantic(at least one of them) movie of all times.@@@1 +Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.

The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.

The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).

Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.@@@0 +My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.

I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...

On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..

I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful!@@@1 +With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.@@@0 +I managed to catch a late night double feature last night of "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004), and saw both films in a row, without really having the chance to catch my breath in between or ponder on the meaning of each film separately. After sleeping it over, I have to say that I largely prefer the former over the latter, and I shall explain why.

Before Sunrise introduces us with then young actors, Ethan Hawke (Reality Bites, Dead Poets Society), only 25 at the time of the film's release; and Julie Delpy (the Three Colors trilogy), then 26 (although looking much younger). He is a promiscuous American writer, touring Europe after breaking up with his girlfriend; She is a young French student, on her way home to Paris. They meet on the Budapest-Vienna train and spontaneously decide to get off the train together. The two deeply spiritual and intellectual individuals than spend a whole night together walking the beautifully captured streets of Vienna, exchanging ideals and thoughts and gradually falling on love.

The film has 1990's written all over it: back then, technology was leaping rapidly, the new millennium with all it's hopes and dreams was waiting just around the corner, and young adults like the ones depicted in the film were filled with love of life and passion for the future. The characters of Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy), with all their flaws and inconsistencies (Celine's accent, if by mistake or on purpose, was half American-half French, and it swinged from one spectrum to the other, breaking the character's credibility), were a mirror of the time. Watching the naive couple swallow life with such meaning and excitement, acting all clichéd and romantic yet managing to have the audience fall for them as well, is what really made this movie work for me. The fact that the director doesn't let you know if their relationship continues after the film or not makes it all even more worth while.

All in all, Sunrise is a dreamy stroll through the urban landscapes of Vienna, a well told classical romantic rendezvous, and a film I will definitely return to for further insight sometime in the future.@@@1 +The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.@@@0 +This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.@@@1 +Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****@@@0 +After a chance encounter on the train, a young couple spends a single night strolling the streets of Vienna, discussing life and love. The primary reason to see "Before Sunrise," is to watch a young Julie Delpy deliver her lines. As "Celine," this sexy, brainy, soulful brown-eyed blond is sort of a cross between Brigitte Bardot and Joni Mitchell as they were in their mid-twenties. Risking overstatement, Celine is practically the ideal woman, unusually beautiful and very feminine while being natural, unpretentious, introspective, and selflessly loving. We can easily forgive that she is a bit eccentric and talks a blue streak, for her sincere, intelligent remarks are occasionally penetrating. Further, her varied expressions are nothing short of captivating and she speaks English with a French accent that is very endearing.

If there is a fly in the ointment of this good movie, it would have to be her unkempt and disheveled costar. Ethan Hawke as "Jessie" comes off like a vaguely appealing slob, sort of a Maynard G. Krebs of the nineties. Attempting to appear detached and nonchalant, he sort of drags himself through certain shots. His pants fit poorly, his tee shirt is coming untucked, his wavy dark hair (his most attractive feature) needs a good washing, and someone really should have showed him how to properly trim his youthful goatee. Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent an unwashed youth on a two-week train ride around Europe, so the look he has cultivated is probably pretty genuine. His oft-cynical observations and wry sense of humor seem to impress the unapologetically romantic Celine, although she is occasionally disturbed by the extent of his alienation. When he finally admits to her that he is utterly sick of himself and likes being near her because he feels like a different person in her presence, we know he is getting somewhere.

After blowing their collective funds on a series of cafes, bars, and silly diversions, they agree that because they may never see one another again, they should make the most of it. Jesse bums a bottle of red wine off a sentimental bartender so that he and his newfound lady love may repair to a local park in the middle of the night to lie on the grass, looking up at the moon and the stars and watching the sun come up.

Given his boundless luck in the romance department, it is especially irksome when Jessie, as the very definition of a naive jerk, foolishly allows this wonderful young lady to slip from his grasp. He contents himself with a half-baked plan, quickly devised at the railroad station when he bids her adieu, to reunite at the same spot in half a year. When the appointed time comes, you just know this beautiful and unusual girl will be involved with another, perhaps even married and pregnant. For whatever reason, she probably won't show, while Jesse, who ends up working at Target or (if he's lucky) the local library, will go back to Vienna, desperate to see her again, only to wind up alone.

Despite what for me was a very discouraging conclusion, "Before Sunrise" is a beautiful movie. I highly recommend both it and the sequel, "Before Sunset."@@@1 +the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.@@@0 +When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!!@@@1 +I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.@@@0 +Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D@@@1 +What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.

At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.

Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.@@@0 +This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.

The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.

The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.

This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s!@@@1 +Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.

Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.

No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.

I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10@@@0 +Before Sunrise has many remarkable things going on, almost too many to fit into one review like this, but it's suffice to say that it's one of the most observant character studies of the nineties, maybe even in all of contemporary cinema, to be observant not about love, per-say, so much as it's about a human connection. How does one fall in love at first sight? No one does, at least that's deep down the consensus that Linklater wants to show with his film. And *yet* there is the possibility of as intense a connection, of a bond that can form in those that are young and with many ideas that can be expressed articulately and with a breadth of cynicism and is somehow very tender and true at the same time. Linklater here gives us the story of Celine and Jessie, a French girl and an American boy who get off the same train heading to Vienna, and on the way there start to talking about things, at first arbitrary, then personal (Jessie seeing death for the first time in his great grandfather). Jessie persuades Celine to go along with him on a night out on the 'town', in Vienna, until his plane the next morning.

Before Sunrise gives Jessie and Celine, in the midst of the gorgeous Vienna scenery and locales to go on and on about subjects that have a lot of importance, and in a sense is about the act of having conversations, of what it's like to watch people having one leading into another and another. Here it's often about relationships and commitments, as Jessie and Celine tell stories sometimes somewhat inconsequential, or seemingly so, and another that may tell a lot about their essential qualities. We hear confessions of desires for other loves, or what weren't really loves, of being part of a family or part of an upbringing that may or may not inform how you'll love your life, of what it means to believe or not believe in some religious form, or just to have some connection to any faith and the soul (I loved the bit about the quakers in the church), and sometimes laced with cynicism or skepticism. Jessie may be more responsible for that last part, but what's fascinating about the film is that it's never exactly cynical itself, just commenting upon cynicism that lays in the concerns of men and women at that age of their lives.

Meanwhile, it's always great to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in these roles, where they're not incessantly annoying in that 90s Generation-X mode, but are the kinds of people where if not in the central conceit of the film, which isn't a bad one at all but a necessary one, one might think to find walking along the streets of a city somewhere. The conceit is that of an old romantic picture ala Brief Encounter, only here intimacy is expressed in the central characters either between each other, where sweet asides are actually acceptable ("I have to tell you a secret", Jessie says, and then leans in for a kiss, ho-ho), or in the little moments that pop up with other people along the way. I loved the scene with the poet, where it's very cinematic a thing to suddenly find a random romantic bit player in the midst of a romantic picture with such beautiful words at his disposal, or with the palm reader and how the reactions from Jessie and Celine are that we might share, but really are seeing them do it first-hand. All the while Hawke and Delpy embody the roles interestingly- we can see how neuroses are being formed already for their adult lives- as it may lead off into the future...

Featuring splendid cinematography and a script with an ear for natural wit and a true sense of what it means to have a moment of happiness, however self-contained, as it may lead into something more. Who's to say you can't suddenly be attached to someone, if only for less than 24 hours, and be that much more attached than a married couple? This is perhaps Linklater's thesis, but there's more to it than just that. It's a very dense film, and one that will have me calling back to it repeatedly. One scene especially, which is both cheesy and brilliant is when the two of them are talking 'on the phone' in front of each other mimicking their expositions might go to the other's friend. A+@@@1 +I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.

At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more!

Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.

This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.

If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.@@@0 +This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than "Before Sunset", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is "love" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes "Before Sunrise" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch "Before Sunrise" before watching "Before Sunset". If like me, you watched "Sunset" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.@@@1 +All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.@@@0 +Richard Linklater's beautifully directed mixture of youthful romance and Paris travelogue is one of the 90's best thinking person's romantic movies. Julie Delpy turns in one of the decade's most engaging performances as the Parisian lass who spends a day with stranger-on-a-train Ethan Hawke. The dialogue (and there is oodles of it) is sometimes meandering and overly precious, but this portrait of two young wannabe-lovers making a romantic, intellectual, and spiritual connection to one another is full of wonderfully amusing, touching and insightful moments.@@@1 +I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.@@@0 +Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.@@@1 +the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!@@@0 +First let me say that Before Sunrise, like all movies, is NOT a movie for all tastes. It appears some folks are less smart to acknowledge this fact, but it is remarkable to contemplate the kind of outright dislike this small harmless movie generates from some people. For me, like most folks here, Before Sunrise struck a deep chord in me, I was truly stunned, moved, inspired by it. This is a movie that ultimately benefits from more than one viewing. It creates some of the most awesomely unforgettable feelings and emotions you can possibly imagine. It is impossible to imagine this world without ever thinking about the kind of inspirational feelings I got from it.

The movie works as a communion of two fragile souls that are starting to get to know each other. It is very intelligent and inspiring, not so much in how one conversation necessarily ties into the next or the significance of the topics of Jesse and Celine's discussions, but rather the little nuances, the perfectly articulate responses they provoke from each other. It captures an honest, romantic, yet fleeting human emotion that is starting to blossom in the awesomely sublime Viennese milieu; it convinces us that their evanescent relationship might be the greatest compliment in the world. And what happens after that night is open for debate, but I never doubt that they won't each other again.

The facile comments by RockytheBear and the below user are hopeless examples of a doctrinaire dissenter unwilling to accept and respect those who love this movie.

See it and it may change your way of life.@@@1 +This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.

I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.@@@0 +i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie.@@@1 +B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.

"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."

"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."

"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"

Dr Price is the snake expert.

Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.@@@0 +There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.@@@1 +I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.

Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.

To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!@@@0 +If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you.@@@1 +Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.@@@0 +I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT!@@@1 +This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.@@@0 +Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.

To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact.

The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.

Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films.@@@1 +"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze.

It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?

And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them.

And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors?

So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.@@@0 +It was by accident that I was scanning the TV channels and found this wonderful film about two beautiful human beings who become attracted to each other in a very innocent and virgin like approach to each other. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) "Tape" '01 and Julie Delpy (Celine) "ER" 94 TV Series (Nicole). This gal and guy, will warm your very heart and soul and make you think deeply into your past relationships and how you really wish you had followed your hearts strings with a guy or gal you deep down loved and lost track of over the years. Jesse and Celine have great conversation, and deep eye contact with a great magnetic explosion between the two of them. I am looking forward to the SEQUEL to this film in 2004 and if you have viewed this film, you will feel the same way.@@@1 +This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.@@@0 +"Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion.@@@1 +I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.@@@0 +I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France@@@1 +I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.

There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.

Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.@@@0 +While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

"Before Sunrise" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose "Before Sunrise" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Antes do Amanhecer" ("Before Sunrise")@@@1 +This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie@@@0 +Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...

Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.

In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.

Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance.@@@1 +when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.@@@0 +This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that.@@@1 +$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.

Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.

Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.

The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.

In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".@@@0 +This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!!@@@1 +I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.@@@0 +Forget the campy 'religious' movies that have monopolized the television/film market... this movie has a real feel to it. While it may be deemed as a movie that has cheap emotional draws, it also has that message of forgiveness, and overall good morals. However, I did not like the lighting in this movie... for a movie dealing with such subject matter, it was too bright. I felt it took away from the overall appeal of the movie, which is almost an unforgivable sin, but the recognizable cast, and their performances counteract this oversight.

Definitely worth seeing... buy the DVD.@@@1 +What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?@@@0 +This movie deals with one of the most feared geriatric diseases among the aging today. As one who has encountered a number of families who are facing the potential of Alzheimer's or who are in the formative stages, I would suggest that every health care giver recommend this movie to any family facing the trauma of this disease. The movie is designed primarily to speak to the family of the patient and reaches into the very heart of the struggle. Casting is excellent and the dramatic portrayal is outstanding with a very commanding plot line.@@@1 +I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.@@@0 +I wasn't expecting to be so impacted by this film portraying a family just like the one you'd expect to be living next door. They are ordinary flesh-and-blood people, not like the typical Hollywood fare. They face an all too common problem--debilitating illness. But the story-line grips the heart with a powerful lesson. Casting, script, direction, and acting flow together with a surge that draws the viewer deep into the story. Give this film your full attention and its message will truly inspire.@@@1 +Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead.@@@0 +Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.@@@1 +Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.

The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.

Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look "hip" to his Sundance buddies and show how "edgy" a filmmaker he is.

Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?@@@0 +This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes@@@1 +The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.@@@0 +A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!

Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.

You don't want to miss this!@@@1 +Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...@@@0 +I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching!@@@1 +What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??

I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.

If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....@@@0 +When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema.

First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.

Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.

Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.

Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?

Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...

A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do

Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live?@@@1 +This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.@@@0 +For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Rånarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliché as the first two thirds of the film.

What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.

One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.

All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10@@@1 +This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.

The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.@@@0 +Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.

Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun.@@@1 +I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...@@@0 +That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.

A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.

The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.

If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film.@@@1 +The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.@@@0 +But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!@@@1 +If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?

The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.

This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.

There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.@@@0 +Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.

Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.

I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of "The Swarm" ? q:)

Long live Monstervision!@@@1 +I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.@@@0 +I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"!@@@1 +Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.

The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.

I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.@@@0 +Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.@@@1 +.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.@@@0 +I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.

Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.

Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.

In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :)@@@1 +What else is left to say?

I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.

Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.

The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."

For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.@@@0 +I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE!@@@1 +Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.

It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.

There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.

The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better.

In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.

@@@0 +Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.@@@1 +I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.@@@0 +I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV@@@1 +I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.@@@0 +I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst.

Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.

Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.

These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together.@@@1 +The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.@@@0 +A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.

This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.

In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy.@@@1 +I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.@@@0 +My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.

I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.

I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.

Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.@@@1 +I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.@@@0 +Walking the tightrope between comedy and drama is one of the toughest acts in cinema. How do you get laughs out of other people's misery and not start feeling bad when it goes on too long?

Well, this surprising little gem of a movie will deliver great big laughs, beautiful scenery, and quite a good buzz as well. I particularly like the concept that a trick of history made alcohol legal since white Europeans liked it, and marijuana illegal, since 'those other races' used it...undoubtedly true and exposes a racial side to the marijuana laws so openly flaunted by populations all over the world.

An extraordinary "DVD Extra" commentary...two of them in fact...run thru the whole movie with both the actors, and then again with the writers. I kept seeing things I was sure were not in the first movie, but then realizing how easy it is to miss much of the subtle comedy on the first take. What a hoot! Don't miss it! 9/10 stars@@@1 +

I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!@@@0 +

This is definitely a 'must see' for those who occasionally smoke a reefer in their secret hide-out, trying to avoid being caught by parents, teachers, the police, etc... The protagonist is a lady in her forties, living in her mansion, breeding orchids, and absolutely unaware of the fact that her so-called rich and truthful husband is actually broke and cheating on her. When he all of the sudden dies, she is confronted with the truth. The bailiff comes by to tell her that she is in a huge debt. She doesn't know what to do, until her gardener tells her about the recent success of marijuana in Britain. She decides after some long thinking to get rid of her flowers and start breeding pot instead... The story is quite original, the performances outstanding! I can think of only a few movies that made me laugh more than this one. Still, the melodramatic touch is present. The film is typical British: the jokes aren't vulgar, there is no violence involved. It shouldn't be mentioned that it is recommended to have taken a few draughts before watching 'Saving grace'. It will be so much more fun! Especially the scene with the 2 old ladies in their tea shop is hilarious. I thought my jawbones would burst. 9/10@@@1 +I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.

I don't recommend this movie.@@@0 +This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10@@@1 +I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "…hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" …and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.

When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.

...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.@@@0 +It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10@@@1 +Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.

I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".

Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.

It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".

It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.

A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.

Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.@@@0 +This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve.@@@1 +It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.

And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.

For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.

But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.

Maka@@@0 +A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, "Saving Grace" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.

Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage.

Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in "Saturday Night Fever" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.

Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in "La Femme Nikita", is memorable.

Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10.@@@1 +The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?

In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.

Jason Vanness@@@0 +I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.

The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.

The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.

It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!)@@@1 +One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.@@@0 +Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.@@@1 +I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.@@@0 +Charming doesn't even begin to describe "Saving Grace;" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).

Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.

The most notable quality about "Saving Grace" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.

The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.

Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for "Saving Grace." It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that "Saving Grace" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.

If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.

See "Saving Grace," especially when you're having a bad day.@@@1 +Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.@@@0 +I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted.

It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.

I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their "tea"!!

Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story!@@@1 +Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****@@@0 +"Saving Grace" is never riotously funny, but it delivers quite a few good laughs and I enjoyed it to a significant degree. Brenda Blethyn is a fine actress, and does a good job at portraying widower Grace, who resorts to growing marijuana to pay off her massive debts. The supporting cast also does a fine job. French actor Tchecky Karyo has a funny little role. The premise alone is appealing. The idea of an over-the-hill woman growing and smoking pot sounds funny enough. And the film plays around with the premise wisely every now and then. Of course, there are flat moments, like one where two elderly women mistaken Grace's marijuana leaves for tea leaves and they start pulling childish antics at the store where they work. That was a mindless gag that didn't quite take off. The film's tone is downbeat and occasionally dull, but I got enough laughs to give this English import a recommendation.

My score: 7 (out of 10)@@@1 +My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 +Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.@@@1 +OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...@@@0 +After her Oscar-nominated turn in "Secrets & Lies", Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great "Saving Grace". And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.

After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.

Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that!@@@1 +Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.@@@0 +This light hearted comedy should be enjoyed for entertainment value. It gets quite hysterically funny at times, but if you haven't spent any time on 'that' side of the tracks you will miss the comedy when it erupts.

The cast of characters meld well together and are quite believable in their roles. How Grace handles meeting her dead husbands girlfriend was well played. She's a true lady. And, my favorite is Grace's white pimp suit that she wears.

I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to laugh out loud, who cheers for the underdog or just wishes to watch something different.@@@1 +I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?@@@0 +For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine.@@@1 +Raising Victor Vargas: A Review

You know, Raising Victor Vargas is like sticking your hands into a big, steaming bowl of oatmeal. It's warm and gooey, but you're not sure if it feels right. Try as I might, no matter how warm and gooey Raising Victor Vargas became I was always aware that something didn't quite feel right. Victor Vargas suffers from a certain overconfidence on the director's part. Apparently, the director thought that the ethnic backdrop of a Latino family on the lower east side, and an idyllic storyline would make the film critic proof. He was right, but it didn't fool me. Raising Victor Vargas is the story about a seventeen-year old boy called, you guessed it, Victor Vargas (Victor Rasuk) who lives his teenage years chasing more skirt than the Rolling Stones could do in all the years they've toured. The movie starts off in `Ugly Fat' Donna's bedroom where Victor is sure to seduce her, but a cry from outside disrupts his plans when his best-friend Harold (Kevin Rivera) comes-a-looking for him. Caught in the attempt by Harold and his sister, Victor Vargas runs off for damage control. Yet even with the embarrassing implication that he's been boffing the homeliest girl in the neighborhood, nothing dissuades young Victor from going off on the hunt for more fresh meat. On a hot, New York City day they make way to the local public swimming pool where Victor's eyes catch a glimpse of the lovely young nymph Judy (Judy Marte), who's not just pretty, but a strong and independent too. The relationship that develops between Victor and Judy becomes the focus of the film. The story also focuses on Victor's family that is comprised of his grandmother or abuelita (Altagracia Guzman), his brother Nino (also played by real life brother to Victor, Silvestre Rasuk) and his sister Vicky (Krystal Rodriguez). The action follows Victor between scenes with Judy and scenes with his family. Victor tries to cope with being an oversexed pimp-daddy, his feelings for Judy and his grandmother's conservative Catholic upbringing.

The problems that arise from Raising Victor Vargas are a few, but glaring errors. Throughout the film you get to know certain characters like Vicky, Nino, Grandma, Judy and even Judy's best friend Melonie. The problem is, we know nothing of Victor Vargas except that he is the biggest gigolo in the neighborhood. We know that he knows how to lick his lips, and comb his fro, and carry himself for the sake of wooing girls into the sack, but that's all. We know that Nino plays piano, and quiet well, you could see it by the awards on the family piano. We know his sister Nicki, is a gossip-loving girl with an invested interest in watching TV. We know that grandma is a hard-working traditional Latina woman who's trying to raise her kids with conservatively in a world of excess corruption. Yet where is the titular character, Victor Vargas? He's in this movie somewhere, but we only know what the movie tells us. This is by far the film's biggest flaw. Victor Vargas isn't so much a character but a ping-pong ball, bouncing between scenes with Judy and his Grandmother, but we never get to know who Victor Vargas really is. This is important because as I've mentioned the only thing we know of Victor Vargas is that he's a sexually active teenager with a libido the size of Manhattan. He's a total Alpha-male. Victor Vargas is not the kind of character I sympathize with at all. Why should anyone? So by the end of the movie, in the aftermath of the climax are we truly led to believe that somehow Victor Vargas has attained ANY depth and learned the errors of his ways? How could such a two-dimensional character have any depth? If only the director had worried a little more about fleshing out his main character instead of worrying about getting that perfect hand-held shot.

Raising Victor Vargas brings to life the world of the Latino inner-city neighborhood to the big screen. Something that few films have done before in the past. The film has been complimented for feeling so real, and I won't

argue with that. I haven't seen this level of reality since CBS aired Survivor. Seriously, although the movie has some nice shots of the city, the writer/director Peter Sollett was way too dependent on close-ups and hand-held shots. This problem is particularly noticed in indoor scenes that are so claustrophobic I was forced to perform deep-breathing exercises to keep from passing out. As the film continues, the shots get tighter and tighter with faces cropped from brow to chin on the screen; you can practically smell Victor Vargas's cheap cologne. The overall effect is unrealistic in contrast. The indoor scenes of inner-city apartments make them look small and cramp, which is not true. I've been in those type apartments; I used to live in one. They're not splendorous but they have high ceilings and they're decent living spaces. By the movie's standards you'd think that these apartments were 5x5 cells of brick-and-mortar, chipped paint and cracked walls. Unfortunately, Sollett's constant use of close-ups and one particularly bad shot with a zoom-in on one scene come off as totally amateurish. But Raising Victor Vargas is only Sollett's second film, and his most well known, a solid effort in filmmaking that will hopefully get better as he continues to make films. One review I read summarized the movie as, `Ethnicity for Ethnicity's Sake,' and I cannot agree more. If Victor Vargas were truly a great film and story, then the characters' applicability wouldn't matter whether they were Latino, Chinese, etc. Yet if you were to take this story and stick it in middle-class suburbia with a bunch of teeny-bopper white kids the results wouldn't be such glowing reviews, and we'd see the film's flaws more clearly. Indeed, some other aspects of the use of Latinos in this film bother me. While some aspects of Victor Vargas are accurate others I have to question. For example, Victor, Nino and Vicky all share the same room to sleep. This set off an alarm for me because it seemed contrary to what I believe. Any self-respecting Latino family wouldn't have two older brothers sharing the same room with a thirteen-year old girl. At first I was unsure, perhaps I was wrong, but after speaking with my grandmother I knew my problem with this was justified. Considering how conservative the grandmother is, you'd think that Vicky would have been sleeping in her room.

As a Latino who grew up in a somewhat conservative Cuban household, raised by my grandmother while my mother was working full-time, I could relate to the movie in many ways, which is why my critical viewpoints are bittersweet because I really wanted to love this movie. Unfortunately, my lack of respect for Victor Vargas sabotaged my feelings for the film. Maybe it's because Victor Vargas reminds me of those guys who were getting laid while I was playing with my Sega Genesis when I was seventeen. Maybe it's because without any further introspection by the film, Victor Vargas is merely a stereotypical hot-blooded Latino, who'll just end up shouting to girls from his car, `Hey bay-bee, ju want to get into my luv Mah-Cheen?' Either way I don't like him, so ultimately how can I like a film about him? So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stick my hands into a bowl of grits.

@@@0 +Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.

Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure.@@@1 +I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?@@@0 +A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed.@@@1 +If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!@@@0 +I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie!@@@1 +I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...@@@0 +This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic.@@@1 +A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10@@@0 +Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special "business", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.

I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.

Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it.@@@1 +On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.@@@0 +Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.@@@1 +I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.

But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.

It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.

I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.@@@0 +Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time.@@@1 +Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!

Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.

Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!@@@0 +I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.@@@1 +So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.

This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.

Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.

I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!@@@0 +It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.@@@1 +I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.

The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.

That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.@@@0 +Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.@@@1 +OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!@@@0 +Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.@@@1 +This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang.

The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical.

Disappointing: Sinatra

Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary.

Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice"

Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)

Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.@@@0 +This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.@@@1 +En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).@@@0 +Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.@@@1 +I never was an avid viewer of "Crocodile Hunter", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.

A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers!

Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from "Crocodile Hunter" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical "Crocodile Hunter" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.

Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, "The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in "Crocodile Hunter" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes!@@@0 +Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.

The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.

I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.@@@1 +Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.

Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup – there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.

On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say "They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness"? (what credibility? - Ed note.)

The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.

John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.

The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the "fourth wall" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well…). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters – but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush – anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles.

While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office.

Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints…

So enjoy this diversion for what it is – a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved – interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)@@@0 +one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!@@@1 +The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.

It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.

The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.

Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.

4/10@@@0 +When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!@@@1 +I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..

Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!@@@0 +Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A@@@1 +I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...@@@0 +Yes, that's right, it is. I firmly believe that the N64 and the weird looking controller were both designed just so this game could be made. It was amazing the first time I saw it, with its huge environments and colorful characters, and its amazing now. The play control is perfect, the graphics are beautiful, and it has that Nintendo charm that is always so intangible but undeniably there. A must have for any N64 owner, and a reason to get an N64 for everyone else.@@@1 +If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.

It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.

No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.

The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.

Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!@@@0 +Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10@@@1 +When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it".

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong.@@@0 +This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!@@@1 +OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!@@@0 +Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.@@@1 +I thought that the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.

And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.

P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT@@@0 +I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10@@@1 +Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.@@@0 +This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.@@@1 +Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store …

This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.@@@0 +This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.@@@1 +oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...

one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....

and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...

and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...

these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...

rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...@@@0 +"Emma Woodhouse" Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Duets) has nothing to do with herself but painting, going with her friends on her chariot up and down, saying hello to people in town, and trying to match make everybody she knows. I guess there were no movies, no television in those days, and the girls had nothing to do but gossip. I wish she had read a little more. I like Gwyneth, and think that she is a lovely young woman. She is talented, and in "Emma" one has the privilege to hear Gwyneth sing. I am looking forward to seeing "Duets", where she is suppose to sing. She is brave to speak British English with all those native Britons, including Emma Thompson's sister, "Miss Bates" Sophie Thompson (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dancing at Lughnasa). "Mrs. Elton" Juliet Stevenson (Truly, Madly Deeply) was considered one of the most promising actors in 1991. Gwyneth is part of the American movie royalty, being none other than the daughter of director Bruce Paltrow (St. Elsewhere) and Tony Award Winner Blythe Danner (The Myth of Fingerprints). She will hopefully be around for a real long time. Lucky us! I liked Emma and also recommend it. It is one of those old stories that are still accurate those days. Favorite scenes: Emma singing and playing the piano. I specially like it when she sings a duet. Favorite Quotes: Mr. Knightley": Emma, you didn't ask me to contribute a riddle." Emma: "Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified." Miss Bates: "It left us speechless, quite speechless I tell you, and we have not stopped talking of it since."@@@1 +Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.@@@0 +First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!

@@@1 +I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.@@@0 +If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious.@@@1 +This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".@@@0 +Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.@@@1 +The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.

The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.

The characters were wooden and one dimensional.

The ending made no sense.

Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.

Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'

The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.

If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...@@@0 +A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well.@@@1 +Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.

Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.

This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:

-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot

Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.

Give the demonic ..... 0/10.@@@0 +"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers………).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10@@@1 +Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.@@@0 +Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.@@@1 +From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it!

But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.@@@0 +Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.@@@1 +Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!@@@0 +I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one!@@@1 +I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!@@@0 +This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience.@@@1 +Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.@@@0 +I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie.@@@1 +Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.@@@0 +Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

@@@1 +This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.@@@0 +This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.@@@1 +This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.@@@0 +Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary@@@1 +For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.

One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.

* out of ***** (1 out of 5)@@@0 +Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!

Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).

Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!

Highly recommended.@@@1 +I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.@@@0 +I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma).@@@1 +The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.@@@0 +Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.



@@@1 +Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".

Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.

15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.

*1/2 out of ****@@@0 +This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!@@@1 +I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.@@@0 +I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.@@@1 +I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.@@@0 +By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR@@@1 +1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.@@@0 +A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10@@@1 +*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****

The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.

The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.

This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.

All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.

The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.

The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women?

Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.

Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.

Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,

What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.

For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:

1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.

2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.@@@0 +What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!@@@1 +Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****@@@0 +I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy?@@@1 +This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.@@@0 +Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen.@@@1 +Madison is not too bad-—if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971@@@0 +I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch.@@@1 +This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?

As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".

As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.@@@0 +Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography… The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali.@@@1 +Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.@@@0 +the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten@@@1 +

According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!

1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.

20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.

The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.@@@0 +Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".@@@1 +William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.

One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.

Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.@@@0 +This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.

Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.

All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this!@@@1 +Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)@@@0 +I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour.@@@1 +The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!

This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.

Not recommended unless you're desperate.@@@0 +This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie.@@@1 +People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.@@@0 +Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl!@@@1 +Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.

Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.

If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".@@@0 +I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do.@@@1 +Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the "First Power": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.

This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately "The First Power" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.

The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.

Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:

4/10@@@0 +I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10!@@@1 +I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...

1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.

2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.

3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.

4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.

5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.

6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.

7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.

And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.

4/10@@@0 +Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.@@@1 +Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.@@@0 +A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.@@@1 +The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.

But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.

Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?

By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.@@@0 +Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".@@@1 +When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.

"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.

Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.

"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!@@@0 +Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.

It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.

If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.

However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.

Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself!@@@1 +An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.@@@0 +I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed.@@@1 +

I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.

I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.

I dont recommend it, period.

@@@0 +I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.@@@1 +I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.@@@0 +Director Vincenzo Natali first showed his penchant for character-based sci-fi flicks with his 1997 short film "Elevated", wherein 3 people remain trapped in an elevator while unseen monsters roam the building. His follow-up feature project "Cube", released later that year, had a very similar premise, this time with 6 people and instead of an elevator it was a vast expansion of interlocking cubic deathtraps. Both were admirable attempts to take the sci-fi genre a step further, by deliberately declining to show almost any visual stimulation, choosing instead to spend as much time as possible focusing on the human element, how the characters act, react and interact under incomprehensible and dangerous conditions. After his exploration into the mainstream with 2002's "Cypher", Natali has come back to his bizarre character-film trend to bring us "Nothing", his latest, and by far most optimistic and comedic take on the wide cinematic world of "What If?"

Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) are life-long friends, brought together by a mutual detachment from society and a lack of any one else to be with. Dave, who has always been hindered by a selfish and somewhat dimwitted nature, lives rent-free with Andrew at his ill-located and ill-constructed house, where he often takes advantage of Andrew's neurotic and antisocial mentality. Despite all this, the two misfits are happy together, until one day their deep character flaws, coupled with some astronomically bad luck, land them in the middle of some pretty serious, jail-sentence-worthy trouble. On top of this, they discover that their house has been deemed unfit for existence and is scheduled to be demolished before sunset, so in the hazy, nightmarish panic of everything going wrong for them, they wish that the whole world would just disappear. And it does.

Going any further with the synopsis would compromise a lot of the film's slow (occasionally too slow) reveal about what's happened to Dave and Andrew, and how they deal with their new reality. Natali's fascination with studying human behavior under duress (ala The Birds) is here in spades, but simply by making the main characters friends rather than strangers, he's able to break away from the thriller-horror element of this premise to open it up to a more comfortable and optimistic level. It's almost as if he's made the aphoristic opposite of "Cube".

Of course, the film is not 85 minutes of laughter and sunshine. In keeping with fundamental realism, our two anti-heroes' dynamic often becomes antagonistic, sometimes with rather nasty results. Like the "Desert Island" game, the film looks at how even best friends, when left alone together, can fall apart, but at the same time it shows that friends are vital to the quality of existence. In a very twisted, sci-fi way, this is a feel-good flick, with good heart and good intentions.

However, there are a few qualms to be had with "Nothing". While the two lead actors, Hewlett and Miller, do well with their parts, their characters are not nearly as interesting as they should have been, considering it is completely up to them to entertain us for the better part of an hour. There is some development in the relationship and personalities of Dave and Andrew, some background is given, but ultimately not enough. A generous viewer will sit through the less-engaging portions of the film to see it through to the end, but cynics will probably give up pretty fast.

Acting, as mentioned, is adequate, and considering the amount of 'green-screen' work that would've been needed, reasonably convincing. David Hewlett and Andrew Miller, who both wrote co-wrote the screenplay, have been long-time friends of Vincenzo Natali: Hewlett has in fact featured in every film Natali has made. Perhaps it was their creative input that steered this film in a more positive direction. Nonetheless, the story could have been a lot more involving. Granted, it is relatively entertaining considering that (no pun intended) nothing really happens, but you get the impression that, in more experienced hands, a lot more could've been done with this premise.

In all fairness, "Nothing" is an impressive piece of work in many ways. The concept is interesting, the direction is inventive, the script works on a human level and, most of all, it shows a progression in Natali's creative mentality. For fans of his work, this will be a delight, and for others it will be a nice way to pass a little unwanted time. It's just a shame that the director's fixation on human drama prevented it from being the great, fun film it could have been.@@@1 +Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.@@@0 +I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)@@@1 +Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.@@@0 +If you want mindless action, hot chicks and a post-apocalyptic view of Seattle, then this is the show for you!

The concept of Dark Angel isn't anything new (in fact, there's controversy over whether James Cameron stole the idea from a book), but I spend the entire hour watching it every Tuesday from start to finish.

Jessica Alba is smoking and Max' friends (original Cindy, Kendra) are just as hot.

The fight scenes are getting better, but the dialogues between Original Cindy and Max need to be a little bit better (the slang sounds forced and it sounds like someone living in the suburbs wrote it).

In my opinion, Dark Angel is a great guilty pleasure filled with everything an action fan could ask for, but if you're looking for hard hitting, award-winning drama, go watch "The West Wing" or something.@@@1 +Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****@@@0 +I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....@@@1 +After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10@@@0 +Sitting, Typing… Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything… disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.@@@1 +Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).@@@0 +Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****@@@1 +This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?

Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.@@@0 +... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...@@@1 +I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this@@@0 +NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)@@@1 +An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.

My grade: D-

DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment@@@0 +The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...

Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.

The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.

Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.

Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.

Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.

One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...

However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.

Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?

"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.

Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.

What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.

Final rating: 7.5 / 10@@@1 +First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...@@@0 +I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.@@@1 +This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.@@@0 +Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame!@@@1 +It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.@@@0 +

Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.

@@@1 +I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!@@@0 +I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!@@@1 +'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.

Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').

'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'—all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.

This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.@@@0 +all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen.@@@1 +*Spoiler warning*

First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.

The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone.

She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps.

Her friends are unbelievably nasty.

The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?

A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?@@@0 +Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10@@@1 +A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.

There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)@@@0 +089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number "Shanghai Lil," which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway…this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the "Shanghai Lil" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933).@@@1 +I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either.@@@0 +Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.@@@1 +This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.@@@0 +Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache.@@@1 +Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?@@@0 +The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see.@@@1 +The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.@@@0 +In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.

All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.

Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it.@@@1 +You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.@@@0 +Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.@@@1 +While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.@@@0 +A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated.@@@1 +I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.@@@0 +I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.

I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.

Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.

Thanks so much.@@@1 +Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.

As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.

I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.

Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.

In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.@@@0 +Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.

The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.

This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be.@@@1 +I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.@@@0 +How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?@@@1 +Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.

When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.

The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.

The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.

This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.@@@0 +It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line.

And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done.

Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty.

And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not.

First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs.

Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious.

And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes.

That's entertainment, folks. It's great!

Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.@@@1 +Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!@@@0 +James Cagney is best known for his tough characters- and gangster roles but he has also played quite a lot 'soft' characters in his career. This musical is one of them and it was the first but not the last musical movie Cagney would star in.

Cagney is even doing a bit of singing in this one and also quite an amount of dancing. And it needs to be said that he was not bad at it. He plays the role with a lot of confidence. He apparently had some dancing jobs in his early life before his acting career started to take off big time, so it actually isn't a weird thing that he also took on some musical acting roles in his career. He obviously also feels at ease in this totally different genre than most people are accustomed to seeing him in.

The movie is directed by Lloyd Bacon, who was perhaps among the best and most successful director within the genre. His earliest '30's musicals pretty much defined the musical genre and he also was responsible for genre movies such as "42nd Street". His musicals were always light and fun to watch and more comedy like than anything else really. '30's musicals never were really about its singing, this was something that more featured in '40's and later made musicals, mainly from the MGM studios.

As usual it has a light and simple story, set in the musical world, that of course is also predictable and progresses in a formulaic way. It nevertheless is a fun and simple story that also simply makes this an entertaining movies to watch. So do the characters and actors that are portraying them. Sort of weird though that that the total plot line of the movie gets sort of abandoned toward the end of the movie, when the movie only starts to consists out of musical number routines.

The musical moments toward the ending of the movie are also amusing and well done, even though I'm not a too big fan of the genre itself. Once again the musical numbers also feature a young Billy Barty. he often played little boys/babies/mice and whatever more early on in his career, including the movie musical "Gold Diggers of 1933", of one year earlier.

A recommendable early genre movie.

8/10@@@1 +my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob@@@0 +I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.@@@1 +***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.@@@0 +An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!!@@@1 +I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.@@@0 +This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is.@@@1 +With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.@@@0 +Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride!@@@1 +Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.@@@0 +When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s.@@@1 +I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.

Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.@@@0 +Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.

The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.

I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and...@@@1 +Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.@@@0 +"Footlight Parade" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. "42nd Street" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.

While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.

While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.

It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.

7 out of 10@@@1 +Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.@@@0 +The energetic young producer of theatrical prologues (those staged performances, usually musical, that often proceeded the movie in the larger cinemas in bygone days) must deal with crooked competition, fraudulent partners, unfaithful lovers & amateur talent to realize his dream of making his mark on the FOOTLIGHT PARADE.

While closely resembling other Warner's musical spectaculars, notably the GOLDDIGGER films, this movie had a special attraction none of the others had: Jimmy Cagney. He is a wonder, loose-jointed and lithe, as agile as any tomcat - a creature he actually mimics a few times during the movie. Cagney grabs the viewers attention & never lets go, powering the rapid-fire dialogue and corny plot with his charisma & buoyant charm.

The rest of the cast gives their best, as well. Joan Blondell is perfect as the smart-mouthed, big-hearted blonde secretary, infatuated with Cagney (major quibble - why wasn't she given a musical number?). Dick Powell & Ruby Keeler once again play lovers onstage & off; the fact that her singing & acting abilities are a bit on the lean side are compensated for by her dancing ; Powell still exudes boyish enthusiasm in his unaccustomed position as second male lead.

Guy Kibbee & Hugh Herbert are lots of fun as brothers-in-law, both scheming to cheat Cagney in different ways. Ruth Donnelly scores as Kibbee's wealthy wife, a woman devoted to her handsome protégés. Frank McHugh's harried choreographer is an apt foil for Cagney's wit. Herman Bing is hilarious in his one tiny scene as a music arranger. Mavens will spot little Billy Barty, Jimmy Conlin & maybe even John Garfield during the musical numbers.

Finally, there's Busby Berkeley, choreographer nonpareil. His terpsichorean confections, sprinkled throughout the decade of the 1930's, were a supreme example of the cinematic escapism that Depression audiences wanted to enjoy. The big joke about Berkeley's creations, of course, was that they were meant, as part of the plot, to be stage productions. But no theater could ever hold these products of the master's imagination. They are perfect illustrations of the type of entertainment only made possible by the movie camera.

Berkeley's musical offerings generally took one of two different approaches, either a story (often rather bizarre) told with song & dance; or else stunning geometrically designed numbers, eye candy, featuring plentiful chorus girls, overhead camerawork & a romantic tune. In a spasm of outré extravagance, FOOTLIGHT PARADE climaxes with three Berkeley masterworks: `Honeymoon Hotel' and its pre-Production Code telling of a couple's wedding night; `By A Waterfall' - dozens of unclad females, splashing, floating & diving in perfect patterns & designs (peer closely & you'll see how the synchronous effects were achieved); and finally, `Shanghai Lil' - a fitting tribute to the talents of both Cagney & Berkeley.@@@1 +According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!@@@0 +I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.@@@1 +I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.

So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well.@@@0 +This fabulous movie must be viewed knowing that millions scraped together 10 cents to see it and forget the gloomy day-to-day economic conditions during the 30's. Remember, 10 cents bought a loaf of bread back then, so this was a minor luxury for many people. It's testimony to how Hollywood did its best to make the USA feel a little better about itself. You'll note that with the studio system in Hollywood at the time many of the actors and actresses were type-cast in similar movies, e.g. James Cagney, William Powell, Ruby Keeler, Frank McHugh, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee . Then too, branches of the U.S. military were always respected with enthusiasm and patriotism as in the use of military precision marching by the great choreographer, Busby Berkeley, at the end.@@@1 +I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.

I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.

This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.

I took the DVD back to the store the same day!@@@0 +An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.

The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be.

In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."

Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.

Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color.

Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen.@@@1 +There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.@@@0 +It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In "Yankee Doodle Dandy" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially "Shanghai Lil." And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch.@@@1 +At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.@@@0 +The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.

In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.

Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.

Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch.

Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil.

Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.

Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.

Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best.@@@1 +I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.@@@0 +"Footlight Parade" is fascinating on so many levels. There is no way the supposedly staged "theater prologues" could have been produced in any theater on earth, of course. Think of the huge pools and three-story tall fountains for "By A Waterfall," for instance. (Berkeley directed John Garfield in "They Made Me a Criminal" six years later and had the Dead End Kids singing "By a Waterfall" as they took their showers.)

"Shanghai Lil" is the best production number in the picture. It's a catalog of '30s Warner Bros. sensibilities. Note the African guys mixed into the scene with white and Asian prostitutes. You would never see blacks integrated into a social scene in other films of the period unless they were porters on a train or maids in a big house. Here the black guys are sitting at the bar and singing with the others. I also get a thrill when the military dancers do a "card section" presentation of Roosevelt's image. There's also the NRA eagle--the logo of the controversial National Recovery Administration of the New Deal. FDR was the new president and hopes were so high that he'd pull the nation out of the Depression. You'd never see something so working class oriented coming out of MGM, of course. Warner Bros. wholeheartedly supported the uplift dictated by the F.D.R. administration.

Dear little Miss Ruby Keeler was never better than she is playing the Chinese hooker, "Lil." She hardly even watches her feet as she dances, which was one of her signature flaws.

The Pre-Code stuff is fun. The "By a Waterfall" number is wonderful in that regard. The girls change into their bathing suits on the crowded bus speeding through Times Square with all its lights on. The spread-eagle girls swimming over the camera provide the kind of crotch shots that would not be seen for 35 years. In a few months the Production Code would eliminate such naughty pleasures.@@@1 +The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!

The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.@@@0 +Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.

Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.

Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.

The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.

Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.@@@1 +Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.

Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.

It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.@@@0 +A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.@@@1 +This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.@@@0 +This movie is not schlock, despite the lo fi production and its link to Troma productions. A dark fable for adults. Exploitation is a theme of Sugar Cookies, and one wonders if the cast has not fallen prey to said theme. A weird movie with enticing visuals: shadows and contrast are prominent. Definitely worth a look, especially from fans of Warhol and stylish decadence. Through all the cruelty and wickedness, a moral, albeit twisted, can be gleamed.@@@1 +There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.

Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.

aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.

this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.

anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.@@@0 +Starting off, here's a synopsis: Porno queen Alta Lee (Lynn Lowry) is murdered by her pornographer lover Max (George Shannon) in a game of sexual Russian roulette. Alta's other lover, icy lesbian casting agent Camila Stone (Mary Woronov), provides an alibi for Max. But Camila has an agenda of her own, and a plan involving the seduction of innocent actress Julie (Lynn again) in a web of sexual mind games. When the lookalikes' identities are sufficiently blurred, the stage is set for vengeance as passionate as the most heated carnal encounter.

Though this movie is quite obscure and never got much attention, I find it to be a sexy, suspenseful gem. Cult goddess Woronov has one of her best-ever roles, and she and sexy-innocent Lowry play off each other well. The unsettling music provided by Gershon Kingsley, plus two original songs ("All-American Boy," "You Say You've Never Let Me Down") and the Jaynetts' "Sally, Go 'Round the Roses" compose a memorable soundtrack. Theodore Gershuny's direction is sharp, with everything photographed in muted earth tones that perfectly suggest unsavory business bubbling under society's upper crust. With tons of great New York atmosphere, Ondine (Woronov's friend and fellow Warholite) giving a great performance in a small role, and exotic Monique Van Vooren as Max's ex-wife in a comic sub-plot. This sub-plot, though amusing, looks like it belongs in another movie altogether. However, I'm not complaining, as the film is smooth even as it changes gears and is a hell of a lot more interesting that the erotic-thriller garbage currently being cranked out.

Trivia: Sugar Cookies was originally rated X (soft-core) and released by General Film Corporation in 1973. I am the proud owner of an original one-sheet poster--lucky me! In 1977, the movie was cut for an R and re-released by Troma Team, which now offers it uncut on videotape. Mary Woronov was the wife of Theodore Gershuny at the time, and was reportedly uncomfortable performing the graphic lesbian simulated sex scenes with him leering behind the camera. She can also be seen in two of his earlier productions, Kemek (1970) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972).@@@1 +This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.@@@0 +I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.

I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.

Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV.@@@1 +Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return.

This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.@@@0 +this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today.@@@1 +No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.

Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.

@@@0 +This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.

The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!

Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!

Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD!@@@1 +This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!@@@0 +There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing@@@1 +We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell.

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.@@@0 +Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.@@@1 +I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.@@@0 +My cable TV has what's called the Arts channel, which is a "catch-as-catch-can" situation sometimes, sometimes films, sometimes short clips of films or ballets, and I came into this just as the bar scene came on, where they tear up their coupons. Excellent, exquisite, Ealing wins again, my wartime-Glasgow-raised mother would love this, should I ever find a copy of it. Some of Britain's best artists, from Mr Holloway to Wayne and Radford and the delicious Miss Rutherford, having a wonderful time gently sticking it to the Home Office. Loved the last scene, where as soon as they are "back in England!" the temperature plummets and it rains...@@@1 +The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.@@@0 +Passport to Pimlico is a real treat for all fans of British cinema. Not only is it an enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining comedy, but it is a cinematic flashback to a bygone age, with attitudes and scenarios sadly now only a memory in British life.

Stanley Holloway plays Pimlico resident Arthur Pemberton, who after the accidental detonation of an unexploded bomb, discovers a wealth of medieval treasure belonging to the 14th Century Duke of Burgundy that has been buried deep underneath their little suburban street these last 600 years.

Accompanying the treasure is an ancient legal decree signed by King Edward IV of England (which has never been officially rescinded) to state that that particular London street had been declared Burgandian soil, which means that in the eyes of international law, Pemberton and the other local residents are no longer British subjects but natives of Burgundy and their tiny street an independent country in it's own right and a law unto itself.

This sets the war-battered and impoverished residents up in good stead as they believe themselves to be outside of English law and jurisdiction, so in an act of drunken defiance they burn their ration books, destroy and ignore their clothing coupons, flagrantly disregard British licencing laws etc, declaring themselves fully independent from Britain.

However, what then happens is ever spiv, black marketeer and dishonest crook follows suit and crosses the 'border' into Burgundy as a refuge from the law and post-war restrictions to sell their dodgy goods, and half of London's consumers follow them in order to dodge the ration, making their quiet happy little haven, a den of thieves and a rather crowded one at that.

Appealing to Whitehall for assistance, they are told that due to developments this is "now a matter of foreign policy, which His Majesty's Government is reluctant to become involved" which leaves the residents high and dry. They do however declare the area a legal frontier and as such set up a fully equipped customs office at the end of the road, mainly to monitor smuggling than to ensure any safety for the residents of Pimlico.

Eventually the border is closed altogether starting a major siege, with the Bugundian residents slowly running out of water and food, but never the less fighting on in true British style. As one Bugundian resident quotes, "we're English and we always were English, and it's just because we are English, we are fighting so hard to be Bugundians"

A sentiment that is soon echoed throughout the capital as when the rest of London learn of the poor Bugundians plight they all feel compelled to chip in and help them, by throwing food and supplies over the barbed wire blockades.

Will Whitehall, who has fought off so may invaders throughout the centuries finally be brought to it's knees by this new batch of foreigners, especially as these ones are English!!!!

Great tale, and great fun throughout. Not to be missed.@@@1 +I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!@@@0 +My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called "Thatcher's Britain", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to "The Ladykillers" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially "Passport to Pimlico".

Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico "declaring itself independent" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.

Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the "Burgundians", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.

Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in "The Man in the White Suit" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", or as part of a larger community as happens in "Whisky Galore" or "The Titfield Thunderbolt". The central theme of "Passport" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the "spivs" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a "rules for rules' sake" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.

I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is "We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.

Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.

There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10@@@1 +I'm sorry for Jean, after having such a good original movie to be followed up by perhaps his worst movie in is career. This movie was shot down terribly by horrible acting jobs by Goldbeg(Romeo) and whatever that computers name was. Also, some scenes may have been just a little unnesicary. Truly, bad movie.@@@0 +Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.

Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.

But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before.@@@1 +Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.

I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.

Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.

1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.

Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?

John Ulmer@@@0 +I commend pictures that try something different. Many films just seem like re-treads of old ideas, so that is the big reason I so strongly recommend Passport to Pimlico.

The movie is set just after WW2 and the post-war shortages and rationing seem to be driving Londoners "barmy". The film centers on a tiny neighborhood in London called Pimlico. They, too, are sick of not being able to buy what they want but can see no way out of it. That is until they accidentally stumble upon a hidden treasure and a charter which officially named this neighborhood as a sovereign nation many hundreds of years ago! With this document, they reason, they can bypass all the rationing and coupons and live life just as they want, since it turns out they really AREN'T British subjects! Where the movie goes from there and how the crisis is ultimately resolved is something you'll need to see for yourselves. Leave it up the brilliant minds of Ealing Studios to come up with this gem!@@@1 +This movie was absolutly awful. I can't think of one thing good about it. The plot holes were so huge you could drive a Hummer through them. The acting was soo stuningly bad that even Jean Claude should be ashamed, and that is saying alot!!! And dialogue, What dialogue???To think that I was a fan of the first one (I use that comment loosely, its more like a guilty pleasure, than anything else). This movie had Goldberg in it for crying out loud!!!! Nothing good can come of this movie. What makes this film even worse is that it is soo bad you can't even watch it with a bunch of friends to make fun of!!! This has got to be in my top five worst movies of all time. 2/10 because it is soo hard for me to give a 1.@@@0 +Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10.@@@1 +this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.@@@0 +SPOILERS Many different comedy series nowadays have at one point or another experimented with the idea of obscure independence. In an early episode of cartoon "Family Guy" the Griffin family find their home is an independent nation to the United States of America and the story progresses from there. Way back in 1949 however, the Ealing Studios produced a wonderful little film along the same idea.

After a child's prank, the residents of Pimlico discover a small fortune in treasure. At the inquest it becomes clear that the small area is a small outcrop of the long lost state of Burgundy. Withdrawing from London and the rest of Great Britain, the residents of the small street experience the joys and the problems with being an independent state.

Based at a time when rationing was still in operation, this story is brilliantly told and equally inspiring. Featuring performances by Stanley Holloway, Betty Warren, Philip Stainton and a young Charles Hawtrey, the film is well stocked with some of the finest actors of their generation. These actors are well aided as well by a superb little script with some cracking lines. Feeling remarkably fresh, despite being over 50 years old, the story never feels awkward and always keeps the audience entertained.

Ealing Studios was one of the finest exporters of British film ever in existence. With films like "Passport to Pimlico" it's not difficult to see why. Amusing from start to finish, the story is always fun and always worth watching.@@@1 +** HERE BE SPOILERS **

The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme).

This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.

So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...

2/10@@@0 +I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether.@@@1 +I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.

It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.

If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.@@@0 +Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.@@@1 +There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

@@@0 +This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well.@@@1 +I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.

Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.

Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.@@@0 +This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.

The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.

Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.

Welcome to Burgundy!@@@1 +This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.@@@0 +I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it@@@1 +This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.

The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.

Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.@@@0 +I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).

So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.

And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer.@@@1 +I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.

Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.

What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.

Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.@@@0 +Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies?@@@1 +This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.

* out of 4(Bad)@@@0 +This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.@@@1 +This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.

Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.@@@0 +I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.@@@1 +After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.

We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo!

Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel.

From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!@@@0 +Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.@@@1 +Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies.

In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following).

Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".

Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film.

After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).

You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.

So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!@@@0 +This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look.@@@1 +I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.@@@0 +I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of "A Good Baby."

Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.

This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly.@@@1 +OK I saw this movie to get a benchmark for bad but with this movie it's Unisol's best movie now plot Luc Devereux is now a technical expert who is working with the government with his partner Maggie, who's been through countless hours of training and combat with him, to refine and perfect the UniSol program in an effort to make a new, stronger breed of soldier that is more sophisticated, intelligent, and agile. All of the new Unisols, which are faster and stronger than their predecessors, are connected through an artificially intelligent computer system called SETH, a Self-Evolving Thought Helix. When SETH discovers that the Universal Soldier program is scheduled to be shut down because of budget cuts, he takes matters into his own "hands" to protect himself. Killing those who try to shut off his power, and unleashing his platoon of super-soldiers, led by the musclebound Romeo, SETH spares Deveraux, only because Deveraux has the secret code that is needed to deactivate a built-in program that will shut SETH down in a matter of hours. With the help of a hacker named Squid, SETH takes human form. Not only must Luc contend with ambitious reporter Erin, who won't leave his side, but Luc also must contend with General Radford, who wants to take extreme measures to stop SETH. SETH has also kidnapped Luc's injured 13-year-old daughter Hillary, and is now holding her hostage. Luc is the only person who can rescue Hillary, because Luc knows firsthand how a UniSol thinks, feels, and fights. now there are problems like in any movie like did anyone find it weird how a reporter just-so-happened to be there and The soldiers can take being flattened with a truck however when Vanne Damme shoots them with a gun with one bullet and they die and the final fight scene was unbelievable when Luc is now human and Seth is 5x stronger and faster than any other Unisol and Luc can take a hit from him. with the final fight when Luc smashes him to pieces I was really surprised that the pieces didn't melt and reform him (Terminator 2). another thing that bugs me is how the hell does Vanne Damme get good actors to play relatives I mean in the case of Vanne Damme it's completely off the grid of how Science Fiction this movie is. The Music Score now that must have a mention have you ever listened to a song where you'd rather cut a blackboard with a knife well Universal Soldier 2 is like that. The good points are there's no Dolph (HOORAY) and unlike the 1st one there is only one naked scene whereas in the 1st one there are many (I'm still haunted by the scenes in #1) also the actors in this have some talent whereas in the first one the casting guys were sadists (if you don't believe me look it up)@@@0 +Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.@@@1 +OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.@@@0 +A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing.@@@1 +The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.

Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.

Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.

The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.

I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.@@@0 +What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental.@@@1 +Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?@@@0 +It's cheesy, it's creepy, it's gross, but that's what makes it so much fun. It's got over the top melodramatic moments that are just plain laughable. This movie is great to make fun of. Rent it for a good laugh.

The film centers around three women newscasters, during a time way before cellphones. They go to a small town to cover a festival, but they can't get a room to stay the night. And that's when they meet Ernest Keller. He's creepy in a Psycho kind of way. And he offers to let them stay at his home. But he doesn't tell them the truth about who lives there.

Stephen Furst's performance is so amazing as "The Unseen", that he really carries this film. Most of the movie is kind of dull, although finding out the truth of Ernest's family is kind of interesting.

Just seeing this cast in these scenes makes it worth a look. Barbara Bach and Doug Barr make nice eye candy.

I consider the movie an old gem, hard to find and worth a look.@@@1 +Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.

It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road

Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie

PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter@@@0 +This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ("Carrie" and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining!@@@1 +The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!

To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.@@@0 +Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles.@@@1 +This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.@@@0 +The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10.@@@1 +Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.@@@0 +It's true that Danny Steinmann's "The Unseen" is a simplistic horror thriller with a very predictable plot, no particular attempts for twists or surprises whatsoever and featuring literally every single cliché the genre has brought forward over the decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. On the contrary, my friends and I were pleasantly surprised by this obscure but nevertheless intense little 80's shock- feature that mainly benefices from a handful of brutal images and a downright brilliant casting. The beautiful and ambitious reporter Jennifer Fast and two of her equally attractive friends travel to a little Californian town to shoot a documentary on the anniversary festival, but their hotel forgot to register their booking. In their search for a place to stay, the trio runs into the exaggeratedly friendly but suspicious museum curator Ernest Keller who invites the girls to stay at his remote countryside mansion. One by one the girls experience that Keller and his extremely introvert and submissive sister Victoria hide a dark and murderous secret inside their house. "The Unseen" can easily be described as a cheap and ultimately perverse amalgamation of the horror classics "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The plot is a series of familiar themes that became notorious and endlessly imitated due to these two films, like twisted family secrets in the cellar, voyeurism, crazed inbred killers and a very unappetizing treatment of chickens. Still, I don't consider these to be negative remarks, as "The Unseen" is a completely unpretentious and modestly unsettling thriller that clearly never intended to be the greatest horror classic of the decade. Although the denouement of the plot is pretty clear quite fast, director Steinmann attempts to maintain the mystery by keeping the evil present in the house "unseen" like the title promised. The casting choices and acting performances are truly what lift this sleeper above the level of mediocre. Sydney Lassick, immortalized since his role as the overly anxious psychiatric patient Charley Cheswick in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is truly the ideal choice for the role of Ernest Keller. His persistent friendliness and almost naturally perverted appearance are exactly what the character needed. Also Stephen Furst, who eventually turns from the unseen into the seen, gives away a tremendous performance as "Junior". He looks and acts like an authentic handicapped man and his attempts to get close to Jennifer in the basement are genuinely unnerving. "The Unseen" is a slow and predictable but nevertheless potent early 80's film that will certainly appeal to fans of 70's exploitation and generally weird stuff.@@@1 +Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.@@@0 +Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10@@@1 +Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.@@@0 +Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by … "The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway … Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it – where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which … under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor … The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille … attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.

I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection.@@@1 +The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.

The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.

The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.

The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.@@@0 +Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of "The Spy Who Loved Me" fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in "Animal House"), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out.@@@1 +...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!@@@0 +all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched@@@1 +In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.

@@@0 +Upon the first viewing, I found this tale to be at least less annoying than other Cannon Movie Tales. After many more, I think it's one of the best. Some of the songs are pretty bad, especially the love song, but two things stand out that make the movie, even the singing, worthwhile. One is the art direction. Like the other Cannon Movie Tales, this is a beautifully decorated period piece; every piece of cloth and jewel (both of which have major parts in this movie's plot) look fresh and new, and contrast with the plain clothes of the peasants. Even during the love song I find myself studying the dress and hair of the princess, wonderfully done. The other thing is the comic timing. A lot of the movie is cheesy, but the emperor's vanity (and his making fun of himself in the end), the suspicious guard, the guard chasing Nicholas, and the stupid prince, were all quite funny and seem to be ridiculous quite on purpose. And the sequence during the song Weave-O makes up for the songs that weren't so good.@@@1 +In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.@@@0 +Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!@@@1 +I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.

Very improbable orphanage on Bala.

Cushing and Lee at their height.

Some nice scenery.

Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".

Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.

Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.

Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.@@@0 +"Hatred of a Minute" is a hauntingly beautiful film. A psychological thriller that takes you on a journey through the nightmare that is the life of a serial killer, Eric Seaver. Strong performances and excellent cinematography make this film a "must see" for any film student or horror fan. The realness of the story and the human side of Eric separate this film from other psycho killer movies. Some shout outs to the film's producer, Bruce Campbell as well as to the film "The Evil Dead" add some humor for anyone that knows the genre.@@@1 +I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.@@@0 +Michael Kallio gives a strong and convincing performance as Eric Seaver, a troubled young man who was horribly mistreated as a little boy by his monstrous, abusive, alcoholic stepfather Barry (a genuinely frightening portrayal by Gunnar Hansen). Eric has a compassionate fiancé (sweetly played by the lovely Tracee Newberry) and a job transcribing autopsy reports at a local morgue. Haunted by his bleak past, egged on by the bald, beaming Jack the demon (a truly creepy Michael Robert Brandon), and sent over the edge by the recent death of his mother, Eric goes off the deep end and embarks on a brutal killing spree. Capably directed by Kallio (who also wrote the tight, astute script), with uniformly fine acting by a sound no-name cast (Jeff Steiger is especially good as Eric's wannabe helpful guardian angel Michael), rather rough, but overall polished cinematography by George Lieber, believable true-to-life characters, jolting outbursts of raw, shocking and unflinchingly ferocious violence, a moody, spooky score by Dan Kolton, an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, grungy Detroit, Michigan locations, a grimly serious tone, and a taut, gripping narrative that stays on a steady track throughout, this extremely potent and gritty psychological horror thriller makes for often absorbing and disturbing viewing. A real sleeper.@@@1 +"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married?

Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.@@@0 +I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.@@@1 +In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).@@@0 +"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.@@@1 +I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".@@@0 +This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.@@@1 +this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.

seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened@@@0 +So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out.@@@1 +I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.

I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.

Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.@@@0 +despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.

It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now

honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development

i was glad i watched it@@@1 +This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.@@@0 +Michigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, "Hatred of a Minute" has all the draw of mainstream hits like "Silence of the Lambs" and of cult classics like "Army of Darkness." The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out "Hatred of a Minute."@@@1 +The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.

That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.

I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.@@@0 +I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.@@@1 +Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.@@@0 +I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.@@@1 +When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.

And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.

But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.@@@0 +This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.@@@1 +The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.

This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.

I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.

Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."

First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.@@@0 +This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.

THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.

I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!

@@@1 +There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?@@@0 +This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned.@@@1 +I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.@@@0 +In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.

Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!@@@1 +Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.@@@0 +I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.@@@1 +There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.@@@0 +This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.

I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.

The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.

I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.@@@1 +I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.

To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.

S@@@0 +Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.@@@1 +I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.@@@0 +When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you.@@@1 +Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.@@@0 +Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **@@@1 +Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

0 out of 4.@@@0 +This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.@@@1 +The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...@@@0 +This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 +From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.

William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.@@@0 +this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.@@@1 +Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.

Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.@@@0 +I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

@@@1 +Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...

etc etc etc....

Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.

As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.@@@0 +There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.@@@1 +Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!@@@0 +The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.

Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.

The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.@@@1 +Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.

'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.

I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked.@@@0 +Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.

In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.

It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.

The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!@@@1 +I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.

Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.

Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10@@@0 +This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.

Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.

By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.

These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.@@@1 +Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.

*1/2 (of four)@@@0 +I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.@@@1 +The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.@@@0 +What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.@@@1 +The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.

First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.

Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.

Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.

The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.

And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.@@@0 +What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.@@@1 +Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).

Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.

Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.

When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.

Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie!

While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.

Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...@@@0 +i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow!@@@1 +be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.

The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.

Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.

This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.@@@0 +I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!@@@1 +This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it@@@0 +Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.@@@1 +Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.@@@0 +I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.

The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)

The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.@@@1 +You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.

As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination.

Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.

Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!

@@@0 +I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.@@@1 +One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.@@@0 +The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.@@@1 +Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.@@@0 +It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.@@@1 +This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.@@@0 +What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?@@@1 +What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie.@@@0 +Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.

Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.

It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).@@@1 +I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better.

The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.

THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without.

To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.@@@0 +The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui@@@1 +On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.

I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.

Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:

1. Harris Jeyaraj

2. Harris Jeyaraj

3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it.

4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.

5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.

6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.

7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.

8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.

9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!

10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.@@@0 +"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!@@@1 +Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").

Thx@@@0 +Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series.@@@1 +Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.@@@0 +I found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award?@@@1 +I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..

come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.

technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.

kamal at his best is the best in tollywood@@@0 +Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.@@@1 +It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).

BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic).

*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley@@@0 +Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.

Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.

There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.

Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.

@@@1 +I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?@@@0 +Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??.

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!@@@1 +The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.@@@0 +Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know!@@@1 +A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".@@@0 +As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical@@@1 +About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!@@@0 +When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.

Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.

Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.

Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.

Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.

In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.

To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.

During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.@@@1 +I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.@@@0 +I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.@@@1 +Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!@@@0 +As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.@@@1 +This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.@@@0 +This movie will always be a Broadway and Movie classic, as long as there are still people who sing, dance, and act.@@@1 +An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.

The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.

And indeed, it does.@@@0 +This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...@@@1 +I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.

The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.

I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.

There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.

The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.

The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience.@@@0 +This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.@@@1 +Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.

I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.

The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.

The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.@@@0 +I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...@@@1 +MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.@@@0 +Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.

This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through.

This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.@@@1 +It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.

This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.@@@0 +hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one@@@1 +This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.@@@0 +I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 +This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.@@@0 +I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly.@@@1 +You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).@@@0 +This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.

Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.

Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.

I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.

There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.

A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out@@@1 +Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.

Sorry to be so critical.@@@0 +This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.

Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.

His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.

The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.

Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.

The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.@@@1 +I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.

Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.@@@0 +One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.

The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements.@@@1 +This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.@@@0 +Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.

Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).

The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.

This programme is available on network DVD@@@1 +I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.

** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly.

If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:

First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.@@@0 +Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned.@@@1 +Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things.

The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.

Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.@@@0 +As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.@@@1 +SPOILERS AHEAD

This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, "Flashlight!" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, "oh yeah!" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.

I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.@@@0 +While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television.@@@1 +How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.@@@0 +Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: "Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.

It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times.

In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...

On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past.

A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.

Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.

For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.

Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.

The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.

After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'.@@@1 +So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.@@@0 +This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.

A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.

All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great.@@@1 +Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them.

In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage.

Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.

Is that the spoiler?

It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...

So what's the spoiler?

Lemme think...

No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested.

I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!@@@0 +In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.

This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.

The ending is wonderful.@@@1 +This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!@@@0 +This film has a clear storyline, which is quite unusual to the musical genre. "Cats", "Phantom of the Opera", and other Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals can be considered metaphorical, as they use literary works as their framework. "Biarkan Bintang Menari" (BBM)'s storyline touches the very core of human relationships, especially that of Indonesian people. Despite the fact the film was based on a "supposedly" fairytale, it's actually a fantasy of the 'child' in Indonesian adults. The dance sequences are not perfect, yet the songs represent how Indonesians express themselves. I reckon the choreographer should explore Indonesian way of dancing, by not dismaying the fact that Indonesia's dance development tends to be more westernized. The dance sequences seem awkward in some ways and not synchronized with the songs and/or music. Yet, I still love this movie and regard it as a new wave of Indonesian film genre which I hope to improve in the future.@@@1 +Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.@@@0 +And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie.

All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.

While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer.

It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.@@@1 +Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?@@@0 +I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10.@@@1 +End Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.

The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.@@@0 +I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.

Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.

Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...

(9/10)@@@1 +I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?@@@0 +As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)@@@1 +Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.

4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.@@@0 +I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!@@@1 +My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.

I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.

Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).

What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).

One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.

Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.

If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.@@@0 +Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through.@@@1 +i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.

angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.

and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.

poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.@@@0 +I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.@@@1 +I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.@@@0 +Good, funny, straightforward story, excellent Nicole Kidman (I almost always like the movies she's in). This was a good "vehicle" for someone adept at comedy and drama since there are elements of both. A romantic comedy wrapped around two crime stories, great closing lines. Chaplin, very good here, was also good in another good, but unpopular romantic comedy ("Truth about Cats & Dogs"). Maybe they're too implausible. Ebert didn't even post a review for this. The great "screwball" comedies obviously were totally implausible ("Bringing up Baby", etc.). If you've seen one implausible comedy, you've seen them all? Or maybe people are ready to move on from the 1930s. Weird. Birthday Girl is a movie I've enjoyed several times. Nicole Kidman may be the "killer app" for home video.@@@1 +Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.

Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.

Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.

Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.

The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.

Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.

Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.

Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.@@@0 +This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 +Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.@@@0 +I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.

I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.

http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm

It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.

My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

WuMaster

- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com@@@1 +I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!@@@0 +Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.@@@1 +...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?@@@0 +Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing.@@@1 +On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.

However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.

There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.@@@0 +Modern, original, romantic story.

Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.

Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me.

Conclusion : good movie.

Les Pays-Bas : huit points.@@@1 +First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.@@@0 +A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their "businesses" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 +The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.

Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.@@@0 +When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's.

Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable.

Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.

Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.

I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing.

I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime.@@@1 +Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.

It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.

I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.

The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.

Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling".

During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.

The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.

And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.

@@@0 +I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.@@@1 +I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.@@@0 +The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!@@@1 +1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.@@@0 +This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.@@@1 +The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).@@@0 +The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.

Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).

Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.

See it with an open mind!@@@1 +Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****@@@0 +From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in "K-19." Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz.@@@1 +Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.

Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.

The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.

OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.

This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.@@@0 +This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series"Heartbeat" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character.@@@1 +but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.@@@0 +Are you a giraffe?... ask John to Nadia, and she, sure of responding well, responds him: yes. In this way begin the communication between a man and a woman who don't know each other, and at the same time, the questions and doubts in "Birthday Girl". A film that i heard a lot of times, but i don't dare to see... until two hours of write this.

"Birthday Girl" is a passionate movie that makes me fall in count, at the same time, that Nicole Kidman is one of the best actress (Besides she is pretty and intelligent) that i have ever seen. "Birthday Girl" is the story of a lonely and routine man who looks for a wife at internet. The woman that he finds comes from Russia. She seems to be that delicate woman, normal, not more. One day, in her birthday comes suddenly, his cousin and his friend. The man, begin to discover certain things. Since here, he don't going to be the lonely and routine man that always have been.

Much of us going to think that this movie is just a regular one with a exploited plot. Much of us going to think that the action and thrills are sure and don't novel. But "Birthday Girl" is just the opposite. This movie is full of good surprises, good performances and a imaginative plot that i had never seen and imagined. This romantic thriller with certain funny touch is an excellent natural film with a lot of proposes for the films of it kind. "Birthday Girl" have certain beauty and crudeness in its scenes, but at the same time, certain touching nature, and makes it so deeper.

"Birthday Girl" is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes violent, but at the end, is totally satisfactory. And I'm not sorry in say that this is a masterpiece.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.@@@1 +It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.@@@0 +The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.@@@1 +Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!

Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!

In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.

Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.

In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.

Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.

Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!!@@@0 +This is a good example a film that in spite of the low rating is more than worth watching. The story is engaging and it doesn't take long before the chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin grabs your attention. The acting is first class and the characters are represented well. Sometimes it feels like the director couldn't decide himself between drama and romantic comedy. Ben Chiller's portrayal of the law abiding and shy Englishman with porn S.M. magazines hidden in the bedroom creates plenty of moments for laughs! As does the look in Nicole Kidman's eyes when she is offering John his first taste of intimacy in a long time... Other times the actors and especially Nicole Kidman give this comedy quite expertly a dramatic slant.@@@1 +Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.@@@0 +For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.@@@1 +Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.

Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!@@@0 +John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman – the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait")@@@1 +This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.

Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.

If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.

The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.

Too bad, I really wanted to like this.@@@0 +This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.

This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.

What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".

Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.

The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.

My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.

Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.@@@1 +I can't think of much to say about this film.

This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.

The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved.

The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage.

If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.@@@0 +Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory.@@@1 +I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.@@@0 +I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.

This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.

I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.

OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.

Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.

Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please!@@@1 +Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.

1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)@@@0 +I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!@@@1 +The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.

The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.

The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.@@@0 +This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)@@@1 +This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.@@@0 +An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.@@@1 +Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.@@@0 +The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.

Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.

Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery.

"My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.

Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.

Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.

He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?

In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.

Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced.@@@1 +For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.@@@0 +Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces.@@@1 +What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.@@@0 +I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10.@@@1 +Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.

As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.

Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.

It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)@@@0 +Excellent show. Instead of watching the same old sitcom type shows where it's the same old thing, just different "stars", this refreshing show provided an incredibly entertaining view of office situations. We have been away from watching any television for 2 years and after coming back, of all the shows available we look forward to watching this show on W. Shame on Global for pulling the plug on this one. I thought this one would be a winner. Let's be realistic about things, FEW Canadian SHOWS make it. Everyone I talk to enjoys this show and I believe it was foolish of Global to walk away. I guess they want to stick it out with the typical mind numbing shows from the States instead of pulling behind a Canadian made show that had a lot of promise. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lot of shows on TV, but, come on people, let's keep the variety. This unique show provided a very comedic view of a slightly exaggerated realistic side of office life and relationships, with unique characters that you don't see on any sitcoms today or in the past. Too bad that global had to say no to this one, foolish mistake.@@@1 +I give this a generous four out of ten stars, or dots or markers, or something.

There were a grand total of two really really funny scenes in this movie. All the scenes with Amy P and Tina Fey and Greg Kinnear (Greg Kinnear!!) moved along agreeably enough.

Otherwise, the usual trafficking in stereotypes, blazing speed, rudely pushed along by a stupid soundtrack, and "soundtrack" is generous.

Anyway, the two really really funny scenes involved Amy P. She's just really hilarious in an animal kind of way. She's a mixture of that ape man skit that they do on SNL and Lucille Ball.

I hope they (Amy P and Tina Fey) just flat out admitted they did this for the money, because if by doing it, it gave birth to the Sarah Palin parodies, then I guess we can say, yeah, it was worth it to put the black guy back into the servant man role, who's really there to help you be more human.

Blah. 4 outta 10 like I said is generous.

But no more, girls, OK? Oh, I almost forgot. The mom from "Two and a Half Men" is in this movie, and she's had some kind of plastic surgery, so that her mouth now looks like the mouth of a 30 year old, so every scene she's in, I'm like trying to rearrange her face, or put it together in my mind, or just answer the question, "No. Wait. Wait. HAS she had plastic surgery?" Because as a viewer, you really don't want her to have had plastic surgery.@@@0 +Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.

The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.

The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.

I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.

I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,"invisible", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour.@@@1 +Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.

Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.

Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.

Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....

4/10@@@0 +Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also.@@@1 +I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.@@@0 +definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well.@@@1 +A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.

I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.

The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.

She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.

Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked … oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!

Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!

It's just too unlikely.@@@0 +Hurrah! A space film that doesn't take itself too seriously and everyone can come along for the exciting ride that is space camp. The film starts slowly, the usual mix of idiots and high-fliers mixed together into a dodgy soup. But when the going gets tough - the tough get themselves sorted out and it's not an un-believable change in the characters as you can believe that there's some responsibility in their young minds.

The only flaw in the film is that Kate Capshaw is EXTREMELY annoying as the "I'm right and you're all wrong" instructor. I would recommend this as a nice night in movie and a 7 Vote.@@@1 +I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off.@@@0 +This is one of the most guilty pleasure movies ever!

I am embarrassed to say that my favorite character is TISH, but still enjoy watching her make her space outfit "like super cool" with a "like totally bitchin" belt and stick on rhinestones on her face.

But anyways, the movie is actually one of the few "family" movies that holds your interest. I know that the begining drags, particuarly if you know what is going to happen, but the second half is probably one of the most nerve wracking segments in a family film.

I wouldn't stand up in front of millions of people and proclaim to love this movie, in fact renting it is pretty embarrassing itself, but I'll admit it here with the internet to hide behind.

@@@1 +An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.

A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.

This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.@@@0 +Spacecamp is one of the movies that kids just love, and mom and dad can have fun watching as well. Growing up in the 80's I enjoyed this movie, it's plot and all the actors. I recently purchased this movie on DVD so when I have kids of my own, they will be able to have as much fun watching this movie as I did. The plot is fun, A group of kids, embark on a journey they never expected, when they were rocketed into space by a overachieving robot. They were in auh at first but when they realized they didn't have enough oxygen to make it back panic sunk in. Once they recovered enough oxygen from the space station they returned to earth as even better friends and a new found respect for life.@@@1 +**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.

Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.

Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.

At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.

The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.

We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.

With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.@@@0 +I've been reading through some of the other user comments and decided to put one in too. Some of the users are stuck in a 'realist' type of mentality. This film was meant to be a 'fantasy'....a 'what if' fun film. It was never meant to be 'real' or serious. It was thoroughly enjoyable for everyone I knew when it came out - even though it shadowed the tragedy of the Challenger explosion...I was 30 at the time and totally enjoyed this one - my young son loved it too! Later, I shared it with my daughter and she, too, loved it. SpaceCamp is a fun family film that should be enjoyed for just that - fun. All the 'realists' in the world should lighten up or stick to watching documentaries or docudramas and avoid any other type of film. So sorry for those young folks who watched this movie first and then were able to go to the real SpaceCamp (one in Alabama and one at Vandenberg AFB in California) - they must have gone expecting to find the same type of environment that was portrayed in the movie and then felt 'letdown'...I guess their parents didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Oh well. If you love fantasy-fun films and haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it! Enjoy!@@@1 +The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.

To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.

Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.@@@0 +This is one of those feel good, Saturday afternoon movies. It's right up there with other retro flicks like Flight of the Navigator. Just a cute movie with some subtle comedy to lighten things up. And it's fun to see how 20 years has changed the stars like Kelly Preston and Lea Thompson. Not to mention Joquin Phoenix.

I personally really like movies like this from time to time. Nothing too deep or too scary. Just a nice story line. And I would have never known Mr. Phoenix had I not recently read the credits. He was just a baby really when he made this movie.

Kelly Preston was quite the young budding actress then too. She and Lea did a wonderful job in this movie. I agree it's not an Oscar caliber movie. But very much worth watching. Especially if you have kids in the , let's say, 8 to 11 year old range. Or ones that are interested in the space program.@@@1 +this is the perfect example of something great going awfully bad... hence, can i advice anyone to watch it? well, i was kinda obliged by the fact that in was in the tiff competition (i still can't believe it won)..and i only remained until the end because the director was there for a q&a section..but that was also anything but interesting.. what's it about? well the first half (the worth watching one) presents three characters: a hooker, a musician and some kind of official..the first two lie about their professions..but the third is the actual liar.. the second half (do something else..don't ruin a good evening) includes some old breasts and heavy drinking.. but maybe you will see it completely different...the tiff jury did (were they drinking vodka ?)@@@0 +Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.

This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.

The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.

This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.@@@1 +As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.@@@0 +To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).@@@1 +I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!@@@0 +This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable.

It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy.@@@1 +The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness.

In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?

Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.@@@0 +The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.

Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around

excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math@@@1 +The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.

I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.

Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.@@@0 +A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.

First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.

It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.

The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.

Overall, it is a good family movie.

@@@1 +Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.

The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...

This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...

I do not ever wanna see this movie again.

Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...@@@0 +i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.@@@1 +The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.@@@0 +Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.

While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.

I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.

All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.@@@1 +Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick!

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!@@@0 +I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch.

They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.

Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.

I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.

Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.

The DVD I have watched feels edited for television.@@@1 +The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.@@@0 +I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows?@@@1 +The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.@@@0 +Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot "Jinx"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...

-Thanks for reading@@@1 +I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.

This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.

Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.@@@0 +WOW!

This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.

Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE.

It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One.

In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.

Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.

We must never forget.

@@@1 +I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.@@@0 +When this first came out 6 months after the tragedy, I didn't want to see it. I didn't want to open old wounds. I regretted it. Now I have seen the movie. Thank God I did. It shows you the bravery of all the FDNY and NYPD. I salute you. It offered me closure. I can now move on with my life.@@@1 +Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.

So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.

The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).

If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.@@@0 +These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.

The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City.@@@1 +The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.@@@0 +If I didn't know any better, it almost seems like it was staged, but it wasn't. It was set up perfectly, and how they got all of that footage is amazing! The unfortunate events of September 11, 2001 are put together well in this documentary and the classic footage that they got made this an unfortunate classic. Just the history in the footage alone should make it a MUST see for any american or person touched by the tragedy of September 11.@@@1 +I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.

The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.@@@0 +SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10@@@1 +This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.

It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.

Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.)@@@0 +Amazing documentary. Saw it on original airdate and on DVD a few times in the last few years. I was shocked that it wasn't even nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar for 2002, the year it was released. No other documentary even comes close.

It was on TV recently for the 5th anniversary, but I missed the added "where are they now" segment at the end, except I did catch that tony now works for the hazmat unit.

I've seen criticism on documentary film-making from a few on this list. I can't see how this could have been done any different. They had less than 6 months to assemble this and get it on the air. The DVD contains more material and background.

I'm also surprised that according to IMDb.com, the brother have had no projects in the four years since. What have they been doing?@@@1 +'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.@@@0 +It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.@@@1 +I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!@@@0 +Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen.@@@1 +This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.

I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.@@@0 +The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.@@@1 +MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.

Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.

Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.@@@0 +Difficult film to comment on, how do you say it's bad? Well it isn't, but then it's equally difficult to say it is good. What it is, is compelling viewing, it is as close as you will get to utter devastation without being there. It is the photographs of the tsunami approaching the coast of Thailand brought to life, you know you want to turn away but you have to watch.

The Naudet brothers handle the commentary very well, even in the most tragic of circumstances, there view on something which is happening in another country neither panders nor insults. The facts are on the cellulose and little is needed for the viewer to understand or comprehend what is going on.

You can't change history, and you should not want, this film stands as a testament to humanity in its darkest hour.@@@1 +i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10@@@0 +I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and

I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.

Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.

And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties.

So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened.@@@1 +This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.

All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.@@@0 +The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.@@@1 +In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.@@@0 +Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.

That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.

Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way.@@@1 +Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)@@@0 +I live in Missouri, so the direct effects of terrorism are largely unknown to me, this brought it home. That two men would put themselves on the line in the way that those members of FDNY and NYPD did, just to document the horror that unfolded on that day. This film is a testament to those who lost their lives and the true evil that terror brings.@@@1 +Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and – it has to be said – the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!@@@0 +Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.

Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.

Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.

The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis.

Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date.@@@1 +Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.

This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.

Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.@@@0 +I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help.@@@1 +Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.

Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.

SIGNED, THE ANSWER@@@0 +I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!@@@1 +This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.

2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.

If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.@@@0 +dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me!@@@1 +I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.@@@0 +Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.

Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.

Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.

After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.@@@1 +After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.

To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.

As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.

In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.

Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.@@@0 +To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced "Nau-day") want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a "newbie" from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the "Probies" at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.

Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about "Probies." It is that they are either "White Clouds" or "Black Clouds," meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the "Probie." The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a "White Cloud." After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....

September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives.

Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse.

What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this "Probie" has proven himself.

Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom.

@@@1 +Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.@@@0 +This was the most visually stunning, moving, amazing and incredible story I've ever experienced. Quite frankly, even those adjectives just cannot describe it. I can't just choose one scene that stood out for me. I suppose if I had to list a few it would be the reactions of the fireman to the crashing sound of jumping victims; the reaction of people trapped in the elevator, who were unaware of what was going on, as they finally emerge to the horrific scene; the shock and disbelief of the onlookers; and finally the silence.

On that day, and even now, I am reminded of Star Wars (1977). Obi-Wan says, `I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.' It is amazing how it is so accurate in its description. There was truly a disturbance in the Force.

This documentary vividly reveals this disturbance. The feelings are so incredibly visual. The anger, the frustration, the shock, the fear, the exhaustion, and the realization of its very magnitude. It's all there. Not a thing is missed.

This is a powerful and most moving documentary and well deserving of the Emmy. Not just because it documents 9/11 but because it is simply everything it should be.

If you plan to watch, be sure to grab a box of tissues. You'll need them. I know that I did.@@@1 +This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.

I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.

The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.

The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.

I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.

I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.@@@0 +To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.

IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.

I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.

How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.

jf@@@1 +Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."

Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."

I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.

There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.

Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.@@@0 +I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour.@@@1 +Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10@@@0 +Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary.....@@@1 +I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.

What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.@@@0 +Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.@@@1 +After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.@@@0 +**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**

(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective.

In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together.

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter.

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion.

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them.

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.@@@1 +I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).

I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).

"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.@@@0 +9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).

In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.

The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.

The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?

This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.

I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?

There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?

There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying.@@@1 +This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.@@@0 +It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.

No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.

I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.

The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.

Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.

We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.

Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7.@@@1 +In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.@@@0 +I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!@@@1 +The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.@@@0 +"9/11," hosted by Robert DeNiro, presents footage from outside and inside the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001.

Never too grisly and gory, yet powerful and moving. "9/11" is a real treat. Anyone not moved by this television show is immune to anything.

5/5 stars --

@@@1 +This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)

What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.

What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)

What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)

What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,

What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.

I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.

I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.

Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"@@@0 +My roommate had bought this documentary and invited me to watch it with her. She's from China and only heard so much about 9/11 and wanted to know the cold hard truth and she wanted me to tell her more after the documentary. I felt awful watching this documentary, it was like reliving the nightmare and it still brings tears to my eyes.

But I'm extremely grateful that I watched this documentary, because on the day of September 11th, I'm sure we all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard, all of us could only think certain questions: "Why?", "How?", "What's going on?", "Oh, my God!". Almost all the Americans were grateful for the brave firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save others. But I don't think we thought about what they were really going though. This wasn't actually supposed to be a documentary about 9/11, the cameraman was just filming a typical day on the job and they just happened to be a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers and got everything, outside and in, on tape.

On Sep. 11th, I thought to myself "It's OK, the policemen and firemen will get the people out that survived". To be honest, I thought it was an accident, I was in my junior year of high school and getting changed from gym and getting ready to go to my science class. Someone came into the locker room shouting "Some building just got bombed in New York!", we all got dressed quickly and ran to our classrooms as we watched the first tower burning on TV. Not only 15 seconds later live on TV does the second plane crash into the other World Trade Center and we knew this was no accident. A few minutes later, we heard about the Pentagon and that there was a plane headed for Chicago but was shot down. So many thoughts ran through our heads and I kept on thinking "What are the firemen and policemen going to do?". But it's procedure to them I thought, they'll know what to do.

The first tower collapsed, we knew it, so many lives are now gone, the second tower crashed, things would never be the same. Those firemen in this documentary showed courage, confusion, and strength, the real raw human emotions. They didn't know what to do, they were just as scarred as those other people who were in the towers. They heard the bodies collapsing on the ground from people jumping out the windows. And here I was in a classroom just crying seeing all that was going on on TV. I was amazed with this film and just wanted to go to New York and tell them how grateful all the Americans were for their help. I know they feel like they were just doing their job, but they did more, they were hero's. Every day after Sep. 11th for 3 weeks they kept on digging knowing that there were no survivors, but they kept on hoping and praying. May God bless their kind and brave hearts.

As for my roommate she was crying and admitted this was her first time crying at these attacks. She got to see the truth of what had happened that tragic day. She asked "Why?". I didn't know what to say, it breaks my heart that people can be that evil. "It sounds clique', but it was a normal day for everyone" one of the firemen said in the documentary. No one expected this to happen. Not like that, those people in the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon or the planes that were hijacked, they were just doing their job, happen to be there, or even just was there for a second passing by. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered, and those hijackers did it with a song in their heart. Then seeing in the middle east all the people celebrating, why do people do this? They celebrated death and the lose of: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why?

So, thanks to those people for making this documentary. You truly think about the firemen, policemen, and the troops in Iraq and it keeps your hope up that there are good people in this world. Thank you to all those people, you are our heroes.

10/10@@@1 +This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.

Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.

The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.

Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.

@@@0 +I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.

Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.

While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.

What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.

If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).

9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this.@@@1 +This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.@@@0 +I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.

It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.

A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.

Regards,@@@1 +First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).@@@0 +It's a good movie maybe I like it because it was filmed here in PR. The actors did a good performance and not only did the girls be girlish but they were good in fighting so it was awsome! The guy is cute too so it's a good match if you want to the guy or the girls.@@@1 +I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.@@@0 +Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!@@@1 +A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.

In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.

The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.

Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.

Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.

The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.

If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.

In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.@@@0 +A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels.@@@1 +Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.

The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.

Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.@@@0 +Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT@@@1 +Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.@@@0 +I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named "Once Upon a Crime...". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a "great" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected.@@@1 +This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story – I do not understand what they are there for – they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.

Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt – shudder – is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it – but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.

As for the rest of the plot – the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back – yawn - or Karl – who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece – although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.

By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!@@@0 +I love Monte Carlo and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought everyone was very good. I was not familiar with Richard Lewis, I thought he made his character (Julian Peters) very personable, funny and attractive. Sean Young was very good as the befuddled rejected girl with a heart of gold. George Hamilton was charming and the perfect Italian gigolo. John Candy has a field day as the bon vivant. James Belushi is hysterical as a total jerk. Cybill Shepard gave a very sweet performance as a nice vulnerable ignored housewife. Delightful ensemble cast. Lots of talent, clever script, lots going on and beautiful locations. Just a nice pick me up for a dreary day. Especially in the winter when a trip to Europe is not anywhere on your horizon.@@@1 +I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.@@@0 +Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.@@@1 +This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!@@@0 +With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.@@@1 +Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.@@@0 +This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!!@@@1 +Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.@@@0 +John Candy's Performance in Once Upon A Crime is possibly his best ever. It's been My Favourite Movie since it came out. I Spent 5 Years searching for it. That's How Good It Is. If You Disagree, well, that's your opinion. Enjoy The Movie.@@@1 +The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.@@@0 +I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!@@@1 +I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.@@@0 +...about the importance of being young, having friends, and most of all enjoying life. Through the experience of four friends, Ligabue shows to the audience how life was back in the 70's in a small italian village. the four carachters represent the four different aspects of human behavior; also the drug experience is well represented.@@@1 +What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.@@@0 +Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch.@@@1 +This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!@@@0 +"Radiofreccia" is still a good surprise in Italian cinema. The film is based on a book of Italian songwriter Luciano Ligabue, who also directs the movie and writes the music score -of course.

The film is a portrait of north Italian province life, in the Emilia Romagna region. We're in 1975, the time of the first free radios -one of the boys of the movie creates "Radioraptus". Youth wishes, friendship, love, sex, individual dramas and unemployment are among the themes, but the film speaks also about drugs -Freccia, the main character, is a victim of heroin slavery.

Without being boring and moralist, the story flows very well; the spontaneity of actors is strong and the way of directing as well. Obviously Luciano "Liga" Ligabue is neither Fellini nor a movie professional, first of all he's a musician. But he succeeds in making a good product. Unfortunately he'll not repeat the success with his second movie "Da zero a dieci" -not good at all.

In "Radiofreccia" actors are generally not very famous, the only star is Stefano Accorsi -one of the most popular young Italian actors. See in a small role another Italian songwriter -Francesco Guccini, he's the nice communist barman and football trainer!@@@1 +When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.@@@0 +Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.@@@1 +Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.@@@0 +Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great.@@@1 +Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.@@@0 +A classic cartoon, always enjoyable and funny. It has an interesting plot complete with lovable characters. Road Rovers is a show worth seeing, it is a short 13 episodes, and if you can ever manage a chance to see it, you should. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. I think Warner Brothers Studios should release a DVD that contains all 13 episodes. I would definitely buy it if they did, and if they do, you should buy it too. if you have kids who like dogs, they will love road rovers! Road Rovers should have gotten more attention while it was being aired, it was definitely an original and very special show that should have been appreciated much more than it was.@@@1 +I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.

For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.

For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.

A very poor 4/10.@@@0 +This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.@@@1 +Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.

The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.@@@0 +Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.

I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them@@@1 +Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time.@@@0 +The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again.@@@1 +In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.@@@0 +Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.

The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.

Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.

7/10@@@1 +the only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.@@@0 +I enjoyed this movie. Haven't seen Andy Griffith in ages and felt he fit this role perfectly. I've associated him with comedy but am pleased to see that he's versatile.

I wasn't troubled that Dotty's "anxiety disorder" may not have been verbatim from a psychiatric textbook. There are zillions of whatever-phobias and neuroses, and these can take on a broad variety of quantitative and qualitative forms. She is clearly a sensitive with extra-sensory powers as was understood by the local Indians but not by any Anglos. It is not surprising that this character is vulnerable and nominally eccentric.

Although this is taken to be a light "family movie", it is actually more sophisticated than it seems. Also, Hiram's twist at the end came as a pleasant surprise to me and tied all the preceding action together in a bundle. It's fun to contemplate the possibility of such spiritual guidance.@@@1 +I have seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me!@@@0 +Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role best in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--TAKE IT.@@@1 +It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.

Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.

Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.

Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.@@@0 +I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing.@@@1 +Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.@@@0 +me and my sister use to rent this every time we got movies and our parents would get so mad at so (but they let us anyways) and I love it...I can't find anyone that lives near me that knows what I am talking about...I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that loved this movie...I wish i could find this on DVD somewhere!! I would love to watch this now just bc I loved it so much as a little kid...and I'm 15 now!!! I remember so much about it...thats where I got the little bunny fufu song from and all my friends know the song but not the movie!! I think the little girl got there by sliding down the slide on her little playground thing@@@1 +How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.@@@0 +So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons.@@@1 +Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.

The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.

Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.@@@0 +Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye.@@@1 +And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.

There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.

What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.

The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.

In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?@@@0 +When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this.@@@1 +If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work.@@@0 +Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ("White Christmas"), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs – Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas – head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's "The Money Pit", and again last year with Ice Cube's "Are We Done Yet?". One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.

The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.

With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ("Cole…Bill Cole"), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, "The House of Tomorrow", is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras.@@@1 +Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.

Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.@@@0 +This incredibly formulaic flick from the "Walker, Texas Ranger" squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of "Walker, Texas Ranger"), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10@@@1 +First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.

However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.

In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast@@@0 +A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.

@@@1 +Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!@@@0 +Good show, very entertaining. Good marshal arts acting. Good story plot. The entire main crew did a nice job from Robert Urich, to Chuck, Norris, Jennifer Tung, and especially a BIG hand to Judson Mills. An especially fine tribute to Robert Urich, in his latter days. A GREAT ! actor who will be truly missed.@@@1 +this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife@@@0 +There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.

@@@1 +I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.

Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.@@@0 +I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie!@@@1 +This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.@@@0 +Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10.@@@1 +Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.@@@0 +If you're a a fan of either or both Chuck Norris & Judson Mills then this is the movie to see.It has a lot of adventure in it.It is a great follow up to President's Man.The chemistry between the main three stars(Chuck Norris,Judson Mills,Jennifer Tung)is incredible.My personal opinion.This movie along with the original,has turned out so well,that the networks should consider turning it into a regular series.If you've seen President's Man,i recommend this movie for you.If you've seen President's Man:A Line In The Sand but you haven't seen President's Man,then let me suggest that you do.You will not be disappointed with either one.@@@1 +This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.

Rating: 1 / 10.@@@0 +Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.@@@1 +There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...

Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.@@@0 +First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic.@@@1 +Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.

This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.

So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.@@@0 +Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.

Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.

It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.

Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.

I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.

Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.

For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend.@@@1 +This movie is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.

There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.

If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.

A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see this movie.@@@0 +Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since.

Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.

The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.

A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.

Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn.@@@1 +I feel like I'm the only kid in town who was annoyed by Branagh's performance. He is a fine actor by most accounts, but he simply could not pull off the Southern accent. I mean, it was deplorable. It was as if he was trying too hard to be a Yank. One of the previous reviewers questioned why U.S. actors were not cast in this film. I second that notion. It's wonderful when actors/actresses wish to expand their horizons, but it's another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. Maybe it was Altman, but he's a such a great director...

Well, I really don't want to bash Branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. Everybody deserves to screw up here and there. But it is hard to watch something so annoying that you'd rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through The Gingerbread Man.@@@0 +Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.@@@1 +If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys:

1. In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...?

2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...

3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.

4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.

Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...

Only for zombie completists.@@@0 +This movie is far better than the original The Jerk. I would highly recommend it to anyone who like quirky humor. We have incorporated almost as many lines from this movie into our daytime discourse as we have from Monty Python.

The card game with the hobos and then with Mr. Suicide. The scene at the dinner table and his distaste for turtle soup. The original The Jerk was too choreographed ans staged. While I like Steve Martin, he seemed like he was trying to hard. The Jerk Too is a spoof and will be enjoyed by anyone. The Jerk Too is family friendly unlike the original The Jerk.@@@1 +What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, "Who put Shaq in this movie???" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I "wish" this movie would go away.@@@0 +Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this "Marty Feldman" thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it.@@@1 +Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.@@@0 +I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.

First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.

Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.

I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime.@@@1 +Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).

This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.@@@0 +I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.@@@1 +OK so after watching this invigorating movie and wasting an hour and so many minutes off my life here is the basic summary: Genie comes out of ghetto boom box, gives this kid with shaggy hair 3 wishes, the kid wastes his wishes on i forget what, shaq sucks at rapping, and i guess thats it.

So mainly I laughed, I cried......but mainly I laughed at the shear comedy that came from the wonderful acting skills of an nba player/rapper and boy with shaggy hair.

I highly recommend this movie for college kids sitting around drinking some beers with their close friends and are in serious need of a good laugh.

I'm going to give it a 3 out of 10 only b/c the movie is based off of 3 magical wishes.

If I had 3 wishes one would be to erase this horrible movie and for everyone to pretend like Hollywood didn't waste money on making this.@@@0 +Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.

PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret.@@@1 +Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'!

The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.

Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.

As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.

So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation!

In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!

Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!

By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish.@@@0 +I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.@@@1 +The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".@@@0 +I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.

Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator.@@@1 +If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.@@@0 +I have just seen this film, and fallen in love with it. There is a little bit of something for everyone, and its a particular free for all when it comes to the romance between Lachlan and Lil. When they are on the beach, I nearly cried... there is the unspoken realization that time is the most precious commodity and it is most evident when they are together. This idea taken from several angles, from marriage to sibblings to finding love in the least conventional of places. The film almost makes you long for that kind of desperation when you know that tomorrow could very well be your last. Crowe was particularly wonderful in his role of Lachlan. I've always had a soft spot for the accent, but I nearly melted with his portrayal of his character. The way this film was shot is also beautiful, with the music, backdrop of the open fields, and superb acting. All together, this is a wonderful film that tugs at all of human emotions.@@@1 +This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.@@@0 +I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story.@@@1 +i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.

The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.

The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.

Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.@@@0 +Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.@@@1 +This is the worst film I have ever seen.I was watching this film with some friends and after 40 minutes we had enough. The plot was bad and there wasn't a single likeable character.I could get more entertainment watching static. I gave this movie a 1 only because the scale didn't go into negative numbers. Avoid this movie at all costs.@@@0 +Movie "comedies" nowadays are generally 100 minutes of toilet humor, foul language, and groin-kicking. Modern comedies appeal to the lowest common denominator, the undemanding and slow of brain. Sure, an occasional good comedy will come along, but they're becoming rarer all the time.

"Mr. Blandings Buildings his Dream House" shows what 1940s Hollywood was capable of, and it's just screamingly funny. Jim and Muriel Blandings (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) decide to build a house in the Connecticut suburbs. The film follows their story, beginning with house hunting trips, the house's riotous construction, all the way to the finished home--with its "zuzz-zuzz water softener".

Grant and Loy are perfect for their roles, of course (Grant is particularly funny as he watches the house's costs zoom out of control). However, the film is stolen by the Blandings' wise attorney, played to perfection by Melvyn Douglas. Managing to steal every scene he's in, Douglas is understatedly hilarious while he watches the Blandings lurch from crisis to crisis. Reginald Denny as the Blandings' harried architect and Harry Shannon as the crusty old water well driller are also wonderful.

I've watched this movie numerous times and it always makes me laugh. I think it's a good film to watch when you need a lift, whether you're building a house or not.@@@1 +How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.

Patrick Watson@@@0 +Very nicely done movie. It does stay in your memory. Better billed as a romance than flying or war, altho the flying parts are realistic and almost error free. Flying buffs like myself will enjoy this movie even if attracted by the airplanes, unless they have no sensitivity or have never been in love.

Fun watching early Crowe. He is good and exudes charm. His reading of "High Flight" is superb.

cheers, Boom@@@1 +There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.@@@0 +This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.

Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare.@@@1 +This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.@@@0 +Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say "Keko Mask: Unknown" while the actor names are listed!

The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: "I've never seen such a beautiful vagina" and "Now I can die in peace." This film is totally fantastic!!

There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says "Hey there's no fog in it!" I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.

This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal?@@@1 +What a pathetic movie.

I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.

Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.

Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.@@@0 +I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?@@@1 +The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said "Uh oh, this is running too long," and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it.@@@0 +Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.

The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.@@@1 +As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment@@@0 +Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick!@@@1 +I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.@@@0 +no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.@@@1 +Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.@@@0 +Well this movie was probobly one of the funniest scary movie i have ever seen. The effects are so bad you just have to laugh, and the acting, well lets say its no mel gibson. But Gary Browning who plays an police officer is so damn bad, he becomes good. I dont know how but he him self makes this movie a 10. You must see it if your in to horror/slash movies cause its bloody and funny at the same time. Killer movie.@@@1 +This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.

This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.

But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.@@@0 +Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.

Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!

Best lines in the movie:

Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...

Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.

Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!

LOL!@@@1 +Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.@@@0 +Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie "san pedro, California" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach "Queen Mary" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor@@@1 +I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.@@@0 +One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.

Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.

A great look at life in the late 40's.

@@@1 +There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.@@@0 +I borrowed this movie despite its extremely low rating, because I wanted to see how the crew manages to animate the presence of multiple worlds. As a matter of fact, they didn't - at least, so its seems. Some cameo appearance cut rather clumsily into the movie - that's it, this is what the majority of viewers think. However, the surprise comes at the end, and unfortunately then, when probably most of the viewers have already stopped this movie. I was also astonished when I saw that the Brazilian-Portuguese title of this movie means "Voyage into Death". This is THE spoiler.

That this movie is about a young girl who goes ALONE onto this boat (on reasons that are completely unclear), you understand only in the last 5 minutes. When you start the movie with the English title "Haunted Boat" in your head, you clearly think that the cameo appearances of strange figures are the "ghosts". But in reality, this movie is not like most other horror movies told from the distant writer-watcher perspective who can at almost any time differentiate between different levels of reality, it is told from the perspective of the young girl. We see her not alone, but together with the four friends because SHE sees them. We do not see that she is alone. So, the parallel worlds are not the cameo appearances flickering into the picture-stream, but the main story! We have at least two parallel worlds: The world in which the girl is and the world in which the 4 friends are. An intrusion of a third world is probably the young man with the medical skills who comes for a short time on the boat.

I cannot get rid of the deep conviction that with this movie, the movie-makers "cheated" an audience of several thousand people by letting them believe that what they have done is more or less a sophomore film-student elaborate with hastily "chosen" pseudo-actors that have met just the night before the start of the shooting in a dump after at least twelve beers. How mistaken can one be! But in addition to this big surprise which one learns only in the very last minutes, the end that follows gives another surprise. The girl is saved by a crew in a helicopter and another boat. When she has recovered from her shock, she visits again the place at the harbor where she ascended the boat together with the four friends. And there they are again! They wave her to them from the boat which has already taken off shore. She jumps into the water, arrives at the boat - and they are away. Miraculously beautiful. It remembers me a bit to the end of a poem by a Rhetoromance writer: When I awoke, I saw Death standing at my bed. But I closed my eyes. When I opened them again - he was gone.@@@1 +What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.

It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.

Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.@@@0 +I also saw this upon its release in '56, and have been struck since then with its final scene. If this is an answer to 'High Noon,' then it's an apt and apposite response. The notion that, as this string is headed, "The town comes together" is a much stronger message than the lonely personal heroism of 'High Noon.' In this theme, 'Concho' is a phenomenal precursor of one my other all-time favorites, 'The Magnificent Seven.' Both Sinatra and Conrad give impressive and convincing performances, especially Sinatra's transformation from bullying kid brother to liberating town savior. I can only hope that at some point all the friends and family on whom over the years I've inflicted my affection for this movie will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves.@@@1 +I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.@@@0 +I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in "From Here To Eternity" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt.@@@1 +Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.

The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.

Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.@@@0 +I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.@@@1 +I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.@@@0 +"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies).@@@1 +This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.@@@0 +Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).

Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.

I savour "moments", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...

Hugely enjoyable.@@@1 +What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.@@@0 +I have rarely emerged from viewing a film with such a warm, happy feeling. I felt as if I had been out with really good friends and had a wonderful time! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting was superb, although I would have to mention Bill Nye in particular as giving an absolutely faultless performance. Bill is an excellent actor and would love to see him in more films. Timothy Spall and Jimmy Nail are also favourites and always love to see them as they give such a solid performance. And Billy Connolly, as always, totally gorgeous. It was a wonderful ensemble performance from all concerned. Such a refreshing experience to see a well-written, superbly acted and good-looking movie.@@@1 +I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!@@@0 +Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.@@@1 +This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison – his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.@@@0 +wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.

i've seen it 3 times so far.

the american audiences are going to love it.@@@1 +That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.

'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.

It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.

All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.@@@0 +I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great.@@@1 +Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.

A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.

I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.

I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been@@@0 +Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.@@@1 +I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievable

WARNING SPOILERISH

It's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.

When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing.

Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.

The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.

As for the ridiculous ending….

In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.

0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.@@@0 +I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :)@@@1 +1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.@@@0 +An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.@@@1 +My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it!

@@@0 +If you like Deep Purple, you will enjoy in this excellent movie with Stephen Rea in main role. The story is about the most famous rock group back there in 70s, Strange Fruits, and they decided to play together again. But, of course, there is going to be lots of problem during theirs concerts. Jimmy Nail and Bill Nighy are great, and song "The Flame Still Burns" is perfect. You have to watch it.@@@1 +Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you.

Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once.

2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.@@@0 +This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie.@@@1 +I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.@@@0 +I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10@@@1 +Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10@@@0 +I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!@@@1 +Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half

hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to

happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their

seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when

the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they

mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill

for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only

got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time.

Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous

hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with

the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one

attractive cast member to remember.@@@0 +I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.@@@1 +"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?

Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.

"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.@@@0 +As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.@@@1 +I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.

Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...

...well anything to be honest@@@0 +I agree with what "veinbreaker" wrote with regards to the "Ahhhh" feeling you get at the end of this movie. I absolutely loved the locations they chose to film, the songs were well written and interesting, especially the psychedelic sounding track on which Hans Matheson sings. It's trippy. Nighy was fab in his role, Nail "nailed" it, Beano was the typical drummer, and Rea kept it together. Bruce Robinson was awesome. Helena was a lovely girlfriend. But I felt Juliet Aubrey's performance was gorgeous. The scenes between Aubrey & Robinson killed me! Perfectly played and the music behind the scene was spot on! Too bad not many more musicians have checked this movie out! They ought to!I've told all my musician friends. great quote by Jimmy Nail's character: "it's supposed to be rock & roll, not the Phantom of the f*****g opera!"@@@1 +The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.

Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'.

You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.@@@0 +I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.

The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.

This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.

And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World."

Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.

Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem.@@@1 +This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.

This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.@@@0 +Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, "The Money Pit".

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see.@@@1 +This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers).

A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".

It's just bad.@@@0 +In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.

One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.

The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too.@@@1 +I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.

WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.

Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.@@@0 +If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!@@@1 +It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.

What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!

How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered.@@@0 +So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all.@@@1 +Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.

The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction.

However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)

Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.

Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)

This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.

The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!

What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.

It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...@@@0 +What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.

Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.

Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.

Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.

It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.

Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work.@@@1 +This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.

Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!@@@0 +This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended..@@@1 +Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.

Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.

The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.

It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.

It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.

I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.

Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.@@@0 +> Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (
> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since.@@@1 +It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.@@@0 +The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.

Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's.@@@1 +Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.@@@0 +I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever!@@@1 +The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.

The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.

As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.@@@0 +...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.

The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.

A small delight, and thanks for the memory.

Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road)@@@1 +By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.@@@0 +This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond.@@@1 +Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.@@@0 +Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr..

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure.@@@1 +I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies", but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.@@@0 +What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye!@@@1 +This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.

Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.

In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.@@@0 +I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.

It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.

I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?

My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience.@@@1 +This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.

I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture.

After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.

After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.

We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly.

The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)

You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.@@@0 +Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties.

How could that happen? What drove me into addiction?

OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce.

Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.

Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in "Love Actually", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is.

Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing "All Over The World", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage.

It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there.

Got Still Crazy... anyone?@@@1 +This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.@@@0 +This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.

Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.

Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.

The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.

Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.

Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.

As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.

The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...

Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...@@@1 +...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.@@@0 +This series could very well be the best Britcom ever, and that is saying a great deal, considering the competitors (Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbours, to name just two).

What made Butterflies so superior, even to the best of the best, is that it did not just exemplify great, classic, classy and intelligent comedy, but it also expanded horizons, reflecting - flawlessly, gently, and at every detail - the great social change that was occurring in Britain at the time.

I remember watching this show as a teenager and being in awe of everything about it. The lifestyle depicted was remarkable in itself. This was the first time I saw real people using cordless phones. And the wardrobe of all the characters was far removed from the goofy seventies attire still seen in North America at the time. Then there were the decors, shop fronts, cars. These people - even the layabout sons, with their philosophical approach to life and epigrammatic humor - were sophisticated. They were examples of the "New Europeans" that would come to have an impact on life and style throughout the world in the coming decade (1980s).

Of course, the premise was strange and fantastic. The idea that someone who was living the suburban dream could be so discontent and restless was revolutionary, particularly to North Americans for whom happiness was always defined as money and things (sure the situation was depicted in American movies and TV, but not with the intensity of Butterflies or the movie Montenegro). And, if the premise was not surprising enough, the means by which it was expressed took it to the extreme. A potential affair that was not really about sex, or even romance? Butterflies dazzled many, but it must have left some people smacking their foreheads in disbelief... at the time anyway.

Butterflies turned out to be - in so many ways - prophetic. It documented, ahead of its time - post-modern ennui, all-pervasive lifestyle, the notion of emotional infidelity, and generational disconnect and male discontent (portrayed perfectly by the strained father-son relationships). It is too bad this series has not been rediscovered in a big way, and all those involved given credit for creating a meaningful snapshot of a certain time and place, and foreseeing all the slickness and angst that was to come.@@@1 +Cradle of Fear

This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".

This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge.

The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play.

As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.

What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.

Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.@@@0 +Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)@@@1 +This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?@@@0 +British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type.

The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.

The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies.@@@1 +Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.

But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.

Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.

To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.

My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.@@@0 +Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)@@@1 +Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.@@@0 +enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there.@@@1 +I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................@@@0 +Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right.@@@1 +This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha.@@@0 +This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10.@@@1 +Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.@@@0 +This isn't as violent as I was expecting which makes the violent scenes appear all the more brutal and effective.

There are a lot of twists and turns and back stabbing and double crossing all the way through the film making it hard to know who's side a particular character is on.

The plot is pacey with some good dialogue and character development and gives an interesting view of the workings of the Triad gang it follows.

The violence when it comes is brutal, no guns or martial art scenes with special effects, this is believable in your face violence and for all the dialogue you are never allowed forget that the Triad is a violent criminal organisation.

The ending is surprising but thoroughly consistent and believable.@@@1 +This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.@@@0 +There can be no denying that Hak Se Wui (Election in English) is a well made and well thought out film. The film uses numerous clever pieces of identification all the time playing with modernity yet sticking to tradition – a theme played with throughout the film Where John Woo's Hong Kong films are action packed and over the top in their explosive content as seen in Hard Boiled (1992) and when Hong Kong films do settle down into rhythms of telling the story from the 'bad' point of view, they can sometimes stutter and just become merely unmemorable, a good example being City on Fire (1987).

Election is a film that is memorable for the sheer fact of its unpredictable scenes, spontaneous action and violence that are done in a realistic and tasteful (if that's the right word) manner as well as the clever little 'in pieces' of film-making. It's difficult to spot during the viewing but Election is really constructed in a kind of three act structure: there is the first point of concern involving the actual election and whoever is voted in is voted in – not everyone likes the decision but what the Uncles say, goes. The second act is the retrieving of the ancient baton from China that tradition demands must be present during the inauguration with the final third the aftermath of the inauguration and certain characters coming up with their own ideas on how the Triads should and could be run. Needless to say; certain events and twists occur during each of the three thirds, some are small and immaterial whereas some are much larger and spectacular.

Election does have some faults with the majority coming in the opening third. Trying to kill off time surrounding an election that only takes a few minutes to complete was clearly a hard task for the writers and filmmakers and that shows at numerous points. I got the feeling that a certain scene was just starting to go somewhere before it was interrupted by the police and then everyone gets arrested. This happens a few times: a fight breaks out in a restaurant but the police are there and everyone is arrested; there's a secret meeting about the baton between the Triads but the police show up and everyone gets arrested; some other Triads are having a pre-election talk but the police show up and guess what? You know.

Once the film gets out of that rut that I thought it would, it uses a sacred baton as a plot device to get everybody moving. The baton spawns some good fight scenes such as the chasing of a truck after it's been hotwired, another chase involving a motorbike and a kung-fu fight with a load of melee weapons in a street – the scenes are unpredictable, realistic and violent but like I said, they are in a 'tasteful' manner. Where Election really soars is its attention to that fine detail. When the Triads are in jail, the bars are covered with wire suggesting they're all animals in cages as that's how they behave on the outside when in conflict. Another fine piece of attention to detail is the way the Uncles toast using tea and not alcohol, elevating themselves above other head gangsters who'd use champagne (The Long Good Friday) and also referencing Chinese tradition of drinking tea to celebrate or commemorate.

Election is a good film that is structured well enough to enjoy and a film that has fantastic mise-en-scene as you look at what's going on. Some of the indoor settings and the clothing as well as the buckets of style that is poured on as the search and chase for the baton intensifies. The inauguration is like another short film entirely and very well integrated into the film; hinting at Chinese tradition in the process. I feel the best scene is the ending scene as it sums it up perfectly: two shifty characters fishing and debating the ruling of the Triads all the while remaining realistic, unpredictable and violent: in a tasteful manner, of course.@@@1 +Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.

As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.@@@0 +Election is a Chinese mob movie, or triads in this case. Every two years an election is held to decide on a new leader, and at first it seems a toss up between Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai, or as I know him, "The Other Tony Leung") and Lok (Simon Yam, who was Judge in Full Contact!). Though once Lok wins, Big D refuses to accept the choice and goes to whatever lengths he can to secure recognition as the new leader. Unlike any other Asian film I watch featuring gangsters, this one is not an action movie. It has its bloody moments, when necessary, as in Goodfellas, but it's basically just a really effective drama. There are a lot of characters, which is really hard to keep track of, but I think that plays into the craziness of it all a bit. A 100-year-old baton, which is the symbol of power I mentioned before, changes hands several times before things settle down. And though it may appear that the film ends at the 65 or 70-minute mark, there are still a couple big surprises waiting. Simon Yam was my favorite character here and sort of anchors the picture.

Election was quite the award winner at last year's Hong Kong Film Awards, winning for best actor (Tony Leung), best picture, best director (Johnny To, who did Heroic Trio!!), and best screenplay. It also had nominations for cinematography, editing, film score (which I loved), and three more acting performances (including Yam).@@@1 +I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.

I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors – never!

He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.

Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?

He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.

Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.@@@0 +First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.

In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.

Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.

While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.

Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.

My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more.

Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.@@@1 +LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................

This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................

Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................

Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........

The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................

A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT@@@0 +It might be a little erroneous to open a review by describing a film in terms of other films, but I think it's the best way to give an approximation of the place Election occupies in the gangster genre arena. It works somewhere in between The Godfather and Kinji Fukasaku's yakuza opus The Yakuza Papers (AKA Battles Without Honour and Humanity), in that it is simultaneously both romanticized and realistic, dark and gritty. But it's also a Johnnie To film, and as such it carries the distinct touch of the Hong Kong auteur.

Every two years the HK Triad elects a new boss. Only this time one of the candidates is not overly happy with the result so he decides to take matters into his own hands much to the dismay of the rest of the Triads and the police. That's the story in a nutshell but rest assured it has a lot more going for it than that. As in The Yakuza Papers, there's a great deal of scheming, back-stabbing and forming and switching of allegiances (sometimes all it takes is a phone call - in one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in recent time) which might not necessarily make for deep drama but makes for an interesting plot and good character conflict. Fans of the gangster genre are likely to appreciate it in that aspect. Election is not as action-oriented as one might expect; although it IS violent. And I'm not talking about the glossy, glamour version of Hollywood violence. This is dark and grim. To's camera lingers in the scenes of people being brutalized in ways that reveal both the humanity and inhumanity of the perpetrators and victims; after all violence IS an integral part of us whether we like it or not.

If you're familiar with To's style, then you should know what to expect. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate. The cinematography is great, slick and dark in equal measures, utilizing dark hues (brown, dark green and orange) while the smooth tracking shots add a vibrant quality to it. In the end, Election occupies a peculiar place. It's not exactly a character study and it's not an action-oriented gangster film. It explores a situation (the election and its aftermath), but does so in style, and is both realistic and romanticized (the Triad ceremonies in particular echo of an oriental Godfather).@@@1 +The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.

Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.

With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.@@@0 +This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East.

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.@@@1 +I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ??

**MAY BE SPOILER**

An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.

2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)@@@0 +Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening credits—and a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standards—moderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids.@@@1 +Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!@@@0 +I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!@@@1 +This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...

Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!@@@0 +I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit.@@@1 +With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype.

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness.

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.@@@0 +The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.

The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.

Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...

Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.

Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.

To be continued...@@@1 +A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 – 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!

Just my opinion!

@@@0 +This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family.@@@1 +In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.

Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.

Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.

In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.@@@0 +Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.

Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.

Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.

I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).@@@1 +Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............

The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.@@@0 +Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.

Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful.@@@1 +I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.

In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.

As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832.

At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.

The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully.

The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.

Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.

Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.@@@0 +Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.

To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.

While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.

While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.

This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.

Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.

Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie.@@@1 +Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.@@@0 +This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.@@@1 +Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.@@@0 +

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!@@@1 +I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.@@@0 +Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.@@@1 +Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".@@@0 +I was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.

This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.

The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.

When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film "Stab" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.

WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!

Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.

Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed!@@@1 +What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10@@@0 +I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.@@@1 +This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.@@@0 +Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.@@@1 +This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.

If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.@@@0 +I have been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.

i give cut a 8 out of 10@@@1 +Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character…she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times.

I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd.@@@0 +There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.@@@1 +This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While featuring good actors the movie doesn't live up to the expectations. The most dramatic thing about this movie is the music, which pretty much sums up the movie: compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known-good actors, loud and dramatic music. It doesn't change the fact, that this is a very boring movie to watch. Earned itself a score of 1.@@@0 +It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.@@@1 +This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.@@@0 +"Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.@@@1 +My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie.

yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad...

Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.

*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!@@@0 +This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.

So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight.@@@1 +This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.

Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.@@@0 +This is surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable and well made, with some decent gore!. All the characters are decent, and the story is quite fun, plus Molly Ringwald played the annoying bitch extremely well. I bought this at a pawn shop for a 1$, and it was surprisingly worth it, and the special effects were pretty damn good for the budget, plus I loved the mask the killer wore as it was actually somewhat creepy. The finale was really cool, as I loved how they defeated the killer, and the ending while predictable was very amusing as well, plus all the characters except for Ringwald were surprisingly pretty likable!. It's decently made and written, and I thought it was quite creative and original at times as well, plus some of the death scenes were very impressive. This killer didn't mess around, and I loved it, and Slasher fans(like myself) should really enjoy this film, plus The opening was really wicked too, with them filming the movie!. This is a surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable,and well made, with some decent gore, and I say it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Kimble Rendall does a good! job here with solid camera work, using a creepy setting, good angles and keeping the film at a fast moving pace. The acting is solid!. Molly Ringwald plays the bitch extremely well,and I had troubles feeling sorry for her, after all she was supposed to be the heroine, she turned out better towards the end, but not by much, I'm surprised she decided to do this film, nonetheless she did an excellent job!. Frank Roberts is fantastic as the killer, he is menacing, creepy and had one hell of a mask, and this guy didn't mess around, he was fantastic!. Kylie Minogue plays a bitch very well in her small role. Jessica Napier is cute and does fine as the other heroine. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5@@@1 +This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.@@@0 +for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.@@@1 +In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.

But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.

Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...

And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.

However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.

Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.

2 out of 10@@@0 +Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick "Hot Blooded" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.

When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late.

Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous.@@@1 +When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.

Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about?

The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.

"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap.@@@0 +When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".

Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.@@@1 +I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.@@@0 +A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?

The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.

No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.@@@1 +......this film is pretty awful, the only thing stopping me from giving it a rating of 1 was the fact that I unfortunately have seen worse.

The jungle music, juttering demons, and fluorescent UV style blood/teeth/eyes give it that "awful" look, and the script is dire.....this film is more like a test to see how long you can last before giving up on it. It's also predictable but not in a good way. Nothing this film does is in a good way. I watched it 10 minutes ago and thought I would rant a bit so there you are. (oh and the acting doesn't let the film down, it's also terrible)@@@0 +This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone.@@@1 +This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.

If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.

But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you.@@@0 +What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it.@@@1 +Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.@@@0 +Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.

There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious!@@@1 +Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.@@@0 +Come on people. This movie is better than 4. I can see this happening...wealthy people have done crazier things than this. And it was funny.

I watch a comedy to be entertained, escape from the pressures of the world for a short while, and not to have to take anything too seriously. This movie fully suits that purpose. I judge a movie on its own merits and am not about to compare Surviving Christmas to Blazing Saddles. I watched totally dysfunctional people grow into caring, likable individuals who could easily live down the street from my home. It will remain on my list of "favorite.....must watch for the holiday season". If you just want to have a fun 90 minutes, watch this one.@@@1 +I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.

The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.@@@0 +You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene.@@@1 +I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.@@@0 +What's not to like about this movie? Every year you know that you're going to get one or two yule tide movies during Christmas time and most of them are going to be terrible. This movie is definitely a fresh new idea that was pulled off pretty well. A very funny take on a rich young guy paying a family to simulate a real Christmas for him. What is the good of having money like that if you can't do fun things with it. It was a win-win situation. A regular family gets six figures and a rich guy gets to experience Christmas like he imagined. Only if.

Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) was incredibly difficult to deal with and it was just a riot to see the family reluctantly comply with his absurd demands. It was a fun and funny movie.@@@1 +This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.@@@0 +Its a good thing I rented the movie before seeing the viewer rating from this site. It was a wonderful movie that I will be adding to my Christmas selection. The cast was wonderfully chosen and Ben Affleck plays a good leading role. I would tell viewers who have not seen the movie to go ahead and buy it. I rate it right up there with Christmas vacation. The movie was very funny and well written and Ben plays the eccentric rich executive very well. The things he says and does is just how I would imagine a person with too much money to act. The movie is much funnier than The Santa Claus and Christmas With The Kranks. Plus it has a good story line and teaches the true meaning of Christmas which is you can't buy love with money.@@@1 +This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.

Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.@@@0 +I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.

This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".

If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out.@@@1 +"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.

Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!

Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...@@@0 +Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies.@@@1 +I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.

It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.

A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.

@@@0 +At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too.@@@1 +i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.

i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.

i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.

it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.

i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.

i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.

spoilers ahead...

it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.

the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.

rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.

i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.@@@0 +What would you expect from a film titled 'Surviving Christmas'and presented as 'festive fun', something like Ghandi or English patient? There are lots of things I love about this film, it's funny, it is very well cast and it is superbly written. I came to the film as a Kaplan/Elfort fan but was dubious when I read the plot, it sounded ridiculous. But the film doesn't come across like that because Affleck (as Drew Latham) plays his part perfectly, one minute a child-like adult, the next a mature man who realises he has gained everything in life apart from what he really wants. In fact we see Latham grow up in this film, when he encounters the problems of those he envies and realises that their lives are not so good, he sees that his own lot is not so bad.

This film has fewer weak or dud scenes than many other comedies I have seen. Comedy is so much harder than any other type of drama, it either works or it doesn't and very few comedy writers get it correct every time.I particularly loved the drama scene, where the family take to reading parts written by Latham . The pleasure is in the reaction of Tom Valco (James Gandolfini) and the comments of Brian Valco (Josh Zuckerman). It is the dilemma of the greedy Tom Valco who has to bite his tongue, wear silly hats or sing to the Christmas tree in order to earn the prize money that keeps the film moving along well.

The addition of daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) into the story brings a delightful romantic angle, and why not in a Christmas film? Of course its corny and contrived; he's rich and handsome, she's beautiful and single, and so inevitably her and Afflect end up falling over together in the snow and finding themselves face to face. Great! One thing I would have liked was more use of festive music to boost the atmosphere but I can't really complain. I got what I wanted.@@@1 +This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion.@@@0 +This movie isn't as bad as I heard. It was enjoyable, funny and I love that is revolves around the holiday season. It totally has me in the mood to Christmas shop and listen to holiday music. When this movie comes out on DVD it will take the place of Christmas Vacation in my collection. It will be a movie to watch every year after Thanksgiving to get me in the mood for the best time of the year. I heard that Ben's character was a bit crazy but I think it just adds to the movie and why be so serious all the time. Take it for what is it, a Christmas comedy with a love twist. I enjoyed it. No, it isn't Titanic and it won't make your heart pound with anticipation but it will bring on a laugh or two. So go laugh and have a good time:)@@@1 +If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great "Rondo" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???

Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving.@@@0 +I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh!@@@1 +Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.@@@0 +This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it "builds" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic.@@@1 +What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?

Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film.@@@0 +`Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself.@@@1 +Pros: Nothing

Cons: Everything

Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.

Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.

My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.

My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)@@@0 +This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary!@@@1 +You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10@@@0 +This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy.@@@1 +And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."

Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.@@@0 +i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.@@@1 +I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize.@@@0 +This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or "down" day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it!@@@1 +Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.@@@0 +The most moving and truly eye opening documentary ever created. I cried the whole way through, from start to end. Watching the show you are immediately captured by a man's struggle to live without pain, to live a life we would take for granted. The first time I heard the title, I was almost scared to see the program, it was hard for me to comprehend living in agony every day of every year of my life. I truly felt for him. The saddest part of the documentary is when Jonny picks out his coffin. Could you imagine doing that? Even more so, even though he was in excruciating and unbearable pain he still opened up his own charity. (DEBRA)Jonny is one of the only people that deserves true respect and admiration, he is the definition of a role model, what a true and undeniable hero he was!@@@1 +I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.@@@0 +In September 2003 36-year-old Jonny Kennedy died. He had a terrible genetic condition called Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - which meant that his skin literally fell off at the slightest touch, leaving his body covered in agonising sores and leading to a final fight against skin cancer. In his last months Jonny decided to work with filmmaker Patrick Collerton to document his life and death, and the result was a film, first broadcast in March, that was an uplifting, confounding and provocatively humorous story of a singular man. Not shying away from the grim reality of EB, the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full. Produced and directed by Patrick Collerton and first shown in March 2004 The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off has become the most talked about documentary of that year. It attracted nearly five million viewers and after the screening the public donated over half a million pounds to Jonny's charity, DEBRA. A Jonny Kennedy Memorial Fund has been set up to raise another half a million with the aim of ensuring that Jonny Kennedy left a one million pound legacy.@@@1 +Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.

3/10@@@0 +I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's.@@@1 +Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D@@@0 +Was flipping around the TV and HBO was showing a double whammy of unbelievably horrendous medical conditions, so I turned to my twin sister and said, "Hey this looks like fun," - truly I love documentaries - so we started watching it. At first I thought Jonni Kennedy was a young man, but then it was explained that due to his condition, he never went through puberty, thus the high voice and smaller body. He was on a crusade to raise money for his cause. He had the most wonderful sense of humor combined with a beautiful sense of spirituality... I cried, watched some more, laughed, got up to get another Kleenex, then cried some more. Once Jonni Kennedy's "time was up" he flew to heaven to be with the angels. He was more than ready; he had learned his lessons from this life and he was free. I highly recommend this. If you do not fall in love with this guy, you have no heart.@@@1 +I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)@@@0 +I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time.@@@1 +NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.

We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.

Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie.

See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.@@@0 +As with all of Angelopoulos' films, "The Suspended Step of the Stork" implicitly demands a close and intimate participation on the part of the viewer, a fact that has certainly contributed to the limited popularity of his work. Dialogues are sparing, with no monologues or exchanges exteriorizing the characters' inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The filmmaker prefers to keep the viewers away from their own emotional responses, and instead forces them to explore and study the characters' identities for themselves. As a result, the acting is understated and implicit, as opposed to overt and explicit.

The action scenes are set between long intervals of contemplation, where the viewer is asked to become a participant, to participate as an actor, by probing his or her own psyche. As in a novel, where the drama rests entirely on the author's writing to provide a template where the reader's imagination and/or past experience flourish, Angelopoulos' drama rests within his images: his uses of the long shots, the long takes, the leisurely pacing, the sparing dialogues that have become his trademark, inviting the viewer to experience the film from his or her personal perspective. Angelopoulos uses silence to capture moments of high intensity, reverting to the non-verbal language of gestures, gazes, sounds, and music, when he believes that words can only take us so far.

The music, by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, provides more than just a discreet background, but becomes itself a dramatic element of the story. A large part of the film consists of exterior shots in subtle, subdued colors, recorded in a drab winter light. Angelopoulos presents us with an "other Greece," one far different from the Greece of the tourist brochures, with ethereal blue skies and emerald seas, drowned in an eternal sunshine. Here, the skies are covered and gray, the air is cold and misty, and the sands of the pristine beaches have been replaced by the trampled, dirty snow of the village streets. Angelopoulos' genius through Arvanitis' camera is on display throughout the film.

"The Suspended Step of the Stork" is above all else a political statement aimed at the socio-political situation in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century. It is deeply concerned with the meaning of "borders," and with those who are the victims of the confusion between nations. In the "waiting room" facing the Albanian border, the refugees, political or other, outcast by the rest of humanity, wait. They may be stuck against a political border, but unfortunately they still carry with them, and hang on, deeper ancestral borders: those of the languages, of the customs, and of the races. Although Angelopoulos' political views are well known, the film steers clear of any political discourse regarding the causes of the refugees' plights. In the process, Angelopoulos forces us to meditate on the concepts of geographical, cultural, political, and personal "borders."

Angelopoulos considers himself a historian of twentieth century Greece, and he likes to bring lessons from the Hellenic myths into his discussions. In this film, he does some border crossing himself between the Greek and Italian cultures, drawing from a combined Homeric and Dantesque tradition of Odysseus' travel. Alexander is a Telemachus, in search of a story about an aging Greek politician/Odysseus who disappeared, never to be heard of again. This political man, a brilliant orator, unexpectedly and inexplicably left the comfort of his bourgeois existence, his wife, and his brilliant career, to live anonymously in a refugee camp with the lowest of the low. He became a poet in exile wondering how to change the world. Of course, the "politician" is not Alexander's father, but the "politician" stands before Alexander like a father figure/Odysseus. As with Homer's Telemachus, Alexander grows as a person during his odyssey.

Of course, it would be wrong to try and see in the film a retelling of Homer's Odyssey in a contemporary context. Angelopoulos draws on Odysseus's travels only as structuring and thematic elements for his film. In Angelopoulos' ending, "Odysseus" is more like the Dante's Odysseus: he does not leave for Ithaca but goes on, "carrying a suitcase." And Alexander/Telemachus is "suspended" between returning to his home and his career, or embarking on a voyage to "somewhere else." He states as much, in a voice-over at the beginning of the film, paraphrasing few lines from Dante's "Inferno": "And don't forget that the time for a voyage has come again. The wind blows your eyes far away."

Finally, although Angelopoulos is not a religious person, there is a Greek Orthodox religious theme introduced during the film in the form of the yellow-suited linesmen, who go around bettering things for their fellow human beings by reconnecting communications, and also the Christ-like figure of the "politician." In the final scene, these men in yellow demonstrate once more the Byzantine iconography's influence in Angelopoulos' work. They appear like "stylites," religious figures found in the Orthodox tradition, solitary and fervent men who took up their abode upon the tops of pillars, in a form of asceticism.

The film ends without a resolution as to the true identity of the character played by Mastroianni. Angelopoulos does not give us any clues, and the wife's statement, "It's not him," is far from convincing and left ambiguous enough. The important question of the film is not whether he is or is not the vanished politician, but that he could be the politician. But the film still ends on an optimistic note. Whereas the wires strung from pole to pole run only along the river, and thus communications across the border are still not possible, and it remains impenetrable, we note that this final scene is taken from a point of view across the river: the camera has crossed the border, and the reverse tracking shot is inviting Alexander and the viewer to follow beyond the boundary. On this account, Angelopoulos gives us hope that somehow, some of the borders will eventually crumble.@@@1 +This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)@@@0 +One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.

What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.

I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.

Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.

Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years.@@@1 +this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.@@@0 +A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)

Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.

Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.@@@1 +I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."

The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me.

The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)

Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10.@@@0 +Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), "Mister Roberts", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), "Shane", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) "King Kong" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS!@@@1 +I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.@@@0 +"The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" (1936), starring Thin Man series star William Powell (this film was released the same year as the second Thin Man film, "After The Thin Man," comes very close to duplicating the fun and style of the Thin Man films, but it nonetheless misses. Still, it is a wonderfully fun, highly entertaining murder mystery in the same comic vein.

Is Myrna Loy missed? Of course, let's not lie. However, I'd be hard-pressed to name a better substitute than Jean Arthur. And the chemistry between Arthur and co-star William Powell is real and it's fun, romantic and involving.

The story and screenplay by Anthonyu Vieller and John Wyne's production company partner, James Edward Grant ("The Angel & The Bad Man") is close to being up there with a Thin Man effort, but lacks a bit of the proper wit and sizzle.

While it's not in the stratosphere of 'The Thin Man" movies (what else is?), "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is one of the most entertaining of the dozens and dozens of mystery-comedy "who-done-its" of the '30s & 40s.@@@1 +I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!

Final Query:

Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.

DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!

Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.@@@0 +William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were.@@@1 +Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.@@@0 +I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.@@@1 +Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap."@@@0 +RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films.@@@1 +I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently.@@@0 +The comic banter between William Powell and Jean Arthur is the highlight of this murder mystery, which has one of the most bizarre and unlikely plots ever. Powell is probably the most suave detective of the 30's, and Arthur has a unique voice which often sounds like a succession of tiny tinkly bells. They are extremely fun to watch, so take the brashness of the plot with a grain of salt and just enjoy seeing it unfold. Eric Blore also has some comic turns as Powell's butler.

Powell's contract with MGM included a clause which allowed him to reject being loaned out to another studio, but he wanted to work again with Arthur and he liked the script, so he eagerly accepted the assignment. They had worked together in two 1929 Paramount films, The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, both in the Philo Vance series.@@@1 +For domestic audiences I can see how they would applaud this movie. For outsiders, with no vested interests, it did not make much sense. The Germans were portrayed as incompetents and the Russians as heroes. The supposedly romantic angle was superfluous and a distraction. How a young woman could 'love' the lieutenant from just glimpsing him was nonsense. How she could, as mentioned at the end of the movie, never marry just because of this infatuation was beyond me. I mentioned the Germans were portrayed as idiots and that was exemplified in the chase into the marsh. Several hundred German troops advanced, pushing the Russians into the marsh. So the Russians hid and the Germans stopped at the edge of the marsh and just stood there listening. I suppose they did not want to get their boots wet, but I am sure an officer would have ordered 20 or 30 men into the water to search the marsh. But that would have ended the story. Also, the Germans entered the barn where the Russians were hiding in the loft and did not bother to fire into the roof. At the worst some soldier would have tossed a grenade into the loft and not climbed a ladder to peer in.

I did see some reviewers who said they cried at the end. I wonder why? You knew this small band would perish and they was nothing heart-tugging in that.@@@0 +I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.

The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important "type writer" clicks and air "whooshes", which is a cool effect though quite amusing!

I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action.@@@1 +I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".

If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.@@@0 +The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!!@@@1 +Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS

This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe

The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid

The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more

Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay

Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual@@@0 +Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.@@@1 +Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.

My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child.@@@0 +I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family.@@@1 +Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!@@@0 +I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.@@@1 +This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.

Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.

If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.

The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.@@@0 +After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the "spin" pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one.@@@1 +I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.

If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.@@@0 +When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended.@@@1 +Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.@@@0 +This movie is really good. The plot, which works like puzzle forces viewer to think and guess, what will happen next. Such a trick brings a lot of surprises and makes a viewer really looking forward to solution of a riddle. Fighting scenes are very good. There's a lot of different combat styles (although one of styles was a bit unreal for me, but it's only my opinion) to watch and it's fascinating show. The only thing which may be irritating is actors look. A bit too effeminate (at least for me). Hong Kong was always good at kung-fu movies especially in the 70's and 80's, so "Five Venoms" (or other its versions) is great choice.@@@1 +TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.

One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.

The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".@@@0 +I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!

We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".

Watch it soon!@@@1 +Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.@@@0 +I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.

The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.

How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.

We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.

If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this.@@@1 +I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK@@@0 +If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10

@@@1 +While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.@@@0 +This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.@@@1 +Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.@@@0 +A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.

Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.

Around 7 out of 10.@@@1 +Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.@@@0 +One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD.@@@1 +This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!

10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!@@@0 +By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.

Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?

This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.

Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city.@@@1 +Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!@@@0 +"In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from."@@@1 +This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.

They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.

This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!@@@0 +There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.

An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word "Venom" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.

Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.

It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.

One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan.@@@1 +I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.@@@0 +Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.@@@1 +The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film".@@@0 +Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet.@@@1 +Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.

The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.@@@0 +After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his "unfinished" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five "venoms" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!@@@1 +First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.

One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.

It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.

It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.

Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!@@@0 +Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.

The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.

The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!@@@1 +I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.

Boy, was I wrong.

I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.

Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.

This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.

Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through@@@0 +Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.

But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.

Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.

Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.

The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.@@@1 +I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying.

I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall.

Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.@@@0 +For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.@@@1 +Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.

Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.@@@0 +Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"

The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.

The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.

The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest!@@@1 +I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.@@@0 +The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.

Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top.

Poison Clan rocks!@@@1 +This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?

@@@0 +I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white"@@@1 +Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.@@@0 +This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.

The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.

One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.

At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.

And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.

This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not.@@@1 +First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.

First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.

Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!

Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!

Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!@@@0 +The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor.@@@1 +WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.@@@0 +I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year!@@@1 +Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.@@@0 +I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there.

ps, Sarah? Call me....@@@1 +This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5@@@0 +The Sarah Silverman program is ... better than those other shows. No laugh tracks, no painful jokes, just a program. The Sarah Silverman program. If you're like me, and you love comedy, this is probably a show for you.

Sarah Silverman brings out-there-funny, and right-here-funny to the table with ease. A mix of different styles, which makes for its own.

This program isn't something you want to start a compare war with, seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with them (other shows). This show is its own entity, and i think most comedy heads will like it just fine.

Go watch and see.@@@1 +Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.

Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas.

It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.

It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.@@@0 +Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time.@@@1 +Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!

However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.@@@0 +Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential.

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds.@@@1 +"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-@@@0 +The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will "get it," it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with "Jesus is Magic" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot.@@@1 +First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.@@@0 +Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever.@@@1 +What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.@@@0 +First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.@@@1 +I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film.@@@0 +This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.

The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.

If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone!@@@1 +Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production.@@@0 +When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.

Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.

I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.

The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show.@@@1 +If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.

The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)

@@@0 +Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job).@@@1 +I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.@@@0 +Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there?@@@1 +I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.@@@0 +I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").

I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.

This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out!@@@1 +This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.@@@0 +Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and "Your car smells like farts" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel!@@@1 +If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!@@@0 +I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.

You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is "pulled over" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - "Do you know why I am standing here?" he asks. "Because you got all C's in high school?" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.

Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her "Jesus is Magic" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that.@@@1 +This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.

These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.

Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.

Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)

Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'@@@0 +For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.

What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.

So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.@@@1 +I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.

The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.

Why was this movie ever made?@@@0 +This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)

Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment.@@@1 +I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.

Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.

Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.

Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.@@@0 +This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word "bigot" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to "shock"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity...@@@1 +Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.

The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.

The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.

Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.

So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.@@@0 +All I can say is, if you don't fall in love with Big and Little Edie after watching this movie, then you're not human! Even after watching it for the first time, I was hooked. It is a mesmerizing experience that is difficult to describe, as I'm sure other fans will attest to. After watching it, you will cry to think that these two wonderful ladies are no longer with us. At least we have Grey Gardens to remember them! I think we all long to possess the fierce independence these two ladies were graced with. Although I have always admired Jackie Onassis Kennedy, she does not stay in your heart the way Big and Little Edie do. What a rare treat to have know such people; I only wish I had!@@@1 +I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.@@@0 +Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.@@@1 +I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.

The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.

I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.

In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch.@@@0 +I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.

Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating.@@@1 +Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.@@@0 +One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: "It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie "The World Famous Singer" and Little Edie " The World Famous Dancer."@@@1 +Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.

All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome.

The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles.

The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit.

Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these.

I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts.

Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.@@@0 +It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's "The Gates" in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings "Tea for Two". Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, " at least someone is doing what they want"!@@@1 +This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.@@@0 +I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.@@@1 +I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.

He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.

I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.

Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.@@@0 +When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.@@@1 +I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.

What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.@@@0 +Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"

Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!"

Great documentary!!

9/10@@@1 +I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .@@@0 +Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.@@@1 +A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.@@@0 +I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up!@@@1 +Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.@@@0 +Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society.@@@1 +*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***

Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick.

*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*

OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:

MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...

THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.

PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film.

RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.

Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.@@@0 +I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary.

Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.

I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film.@@@1 +Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.@@@0 +I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.

Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.

My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".

Love it.@@@1 +While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.

I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.

And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.

At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.@@@0 +Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.@@@1 +This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.@@@0 +Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget.@@@1 +How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer@@@0 +I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable.@@@1 +This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.@@@0 +Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one.@@@1 +If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.@@@0 +Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding.@@@1 +I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:

THIS FILM IS AWFUL.

It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.

Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.

The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.

All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.

I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?@@@0 +The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.@@@1 +This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.@@@0 +This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !

Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' )@@@1 +A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.

This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.

There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.

The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.

Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.@@@0 +I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out.

I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating?

Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time.@@@1 +I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.

I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.

The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.

The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.

Lord help us all.@@@0 +Several years ago when I first watched "Grey Gardens" I remember laughing and finding it hilarious camp. Years later I still laugh out loud when I watch it, but after many viewings I've come to see the beauty in the strange, twisted relationship between the inseparable "Big" Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter "Little" Edith Bouvier Beale.

Mother and daughter living together in their decaying 28 room East Hampton mansion add a whole new meaning to the term "Shabby Chic". With innumerable cats, raccoons and opossums as roommates this Aunt and Niece of Jackie O. allowed filmmakers Albert and David Maysles into their mansion to film them living life day to day. The result is a hilarious, beautiful, sad and moving account of true love and anarchy rule.

The relationship between Big and Little Edie is a testament to the unbreakable bonds of love. And their lives an example of drive, determination and free-will. This movie has more to recommend it than I can put down into words. It is a rare experience that you must see for yourself.

@@@1 +Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.

Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.@@@0 +This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended.@@@1 +Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.

In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.

The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.

All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.

Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).@@@0 +I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.@@@1 +I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.@@@0 +I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.@@@1 +A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.

As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.@@@0 +Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a "cult hit" so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ("Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!"), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as "eccentric", and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for "wacked out of their gourds", but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my "normal" type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed.@@@1 +Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.@@@0 +I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate

look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget

society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge

brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather

mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.

Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.

have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a

Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is

almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes

growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She

prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like

headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We

never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint

that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still

beautiful and full of life.

In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's

lives have become much less than what they once were. Little

Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her

earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and

even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings

along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is

one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a

model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to

find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,

full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic

bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.

Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little

Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,

the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver

scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly

candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable

since it's all real.

I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth

Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's

worth every penny.@@@1 +Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.@@@0 +'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.@@@1 +When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?

Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.

Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?

You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)

I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.

I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???

To sum up.....

The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....

Thanks for reading my review.@@@0 +One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?

The answer is: Probably not.

But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.

This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.

Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.

Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.

Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.

Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.

As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.

There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.

Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.

Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."

Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.

Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."

It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.

Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.

There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.

At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.

This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.@@@1 +I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.@@@0 +I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing.@@@1 +I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.

The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.@@@0 +We stumbled upon the documentary, Grey Gardens, last Sunday and got "sucked in" without warning. Everyone who entered the room became transfixed on the television and the haunting images of Edith and Edie who seemed to be living out their lives in practically one room of a large filthy mansion on the beach, eating ice cream and corn on the cob (which was cooked on the bedside table)--and the cat urinating on edith's bed and her unbelievable words, "i thrive on it [the smell]." We had not seen the beginning and wondered what we were watching and how these aristocratic women managed to get in the position they were in. Spellbinding! a must see!!!!@@@1 +When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.

The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.

In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.

It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.

In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.

And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.

They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.

If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.

Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?@@@0 +Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.

It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.

Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.

The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.

I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).

Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.

I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them.@@@1 +I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...

Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.

I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.@@@0 +Don't read anything about this movie (especially nothing that could contain any spoilers). Just watch this awesome movie without knowing anything about it - and you'll have a really great experience. If you like to see an intelligent, twisted story: Go, get the DVD and you'll truly not be disappointed. "Cypher" is not really a sci-fi movie, more a psycho thriller settled in the environment of globalized business. It's about corporate secrets, how big companies spy each others research departments and the methods used by them. The actors do a great performance and the overall visual style of the movie provides a perfect mode of coldness. Cypher is much deeper, more complex and - what belongs the story and the ending - also much, much more satisfying than Vincenzo Natali's other movies "Cube" and "Nothing". Actually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen (and that's something I really don't say this about every fifth well-made flick). Sorry, can't tell you anything more about this movie without risking to hurt your experience. Just give it a chance. ;-)@@@1 +If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...

First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.

Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.

Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.

Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.

It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.@@@0 +"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.@@@1 +*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.@@@0 +Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.@@@1 +I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.@@@0 +Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.

The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.

There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to.

What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.

Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.@@@1 +I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).

Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.

So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.

Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.

By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.@@@0 +Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.@@@1 +My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.@@@0 +Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.

The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.

The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.

However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too "slow", but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.

Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and "louder" but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again...@@@1 +The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.

P.S. Don't buy this movie!@@@0 +This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.

I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.

I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data.

Take it from there.

This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.

Then it begins to accelerate.

The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.

And at the end: All is not what it seems.

Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN.@@@1 +Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.@@@0 +This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.

I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.

I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time.@@@1 +Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.@@@0 +I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.

The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.

Congratulations to the Producer !@@@1 +Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.

About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.

I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.@@@0 +Who can watch a movie, look at Lucy Liu and not be overjoyed. That woman is amazingly beautiful & a talented actress. That's a tough combination to find now a days. And Jeremy Northam. i heard his name plenty of times, but i never really noticed him. My advice to Hollywood is : "use him more".

now about the movie: I watched it in one of my graveyard shift. I don't recommend that to anyone. It's a bit to complicated & mysterious for that. i still can't believe i didn't see the ending coming. I'm not gonna say what cause that'll spoil the hole movie. although saying this is spoilment enough.

now i'm suppose to cast my vote about this movie. I love the dark mystic story, the actors did a good job & i love the directors (natali) work in the past. There's not a big audience for this kind of thing, that's also pretty risky. you know what, i'm just gonna give this work a 8 cause everybody should see this. Then again, 1 point deduction cause there is always space for improvement.@@@1 +The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!@@@0 +WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.

Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.

It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.

I wish'd it would never end.

Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy.

This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.

Incredible!

8-22-06. Walt D in LV@@@1 +First of all.....

What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch.

What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth.

But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.@@@0 +It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds" – starring Rock Hudson – as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time.@@@1 +This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).@@@0 +This movie is about this wimpy guy who decides to become a spy for a glamorous high tech company named Digicorp. This wimpy guy, Morgan (Jeremy Northam) is unhappy with his miserable suburban life and his demanding wife so he decides to become a spy. He is suppose to go to conventions from other high tech companies and find out all the companies' plans. Instead, Morgan finds himself attracted to a beautiful woman (played by Lucy Liu) and pretty much being double-crossed by these two companies that force him to become a double agent. How will Morgan get himself out of this? Can he trust the beautiful but mysterious Rita Foster (played by Lucy Liu)? And more importantly, can Morgan make it out alive? Wow! What a nifty movie! I was completely sucked in after 15 minutes of watching this movie. It is very suspenseful and you can feel Morgan's fear and confusion as he is doing his best to stay alive. The scene where they put this horrible contraption on Morgan's head to brainwash him is brilliantly creepy and frightening. Morgan slowly goes through a personality transformation that is not so readily apparent until you think about it after the film is finished. From a wimpy guy with bad hair and glasses, he turns into a man actively fighting for his life.

The ending, wow, the ending is incredible! The twist is so much fun! It left me gasping and cheering like crazy! Good performances from all around, especially from Jeremy Natham, Lucy Liu and Nigel Bennett.

I highly recommend this film!@@@1 +Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.@@@0 +Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.

Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.

And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for.

The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):

"This little piggy went to market,

He was pink and as pretty as ham.

He smiled in his tracks,

As they gave him the ax -

He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"

His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!

Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.

The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.

A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew.@@@1 +I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.

I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.

--

@@@0 +This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.@@@1 +I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!@@@0 +I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner.@@@1 +This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.

I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.

Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.

I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.@@@0 +If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.

To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.

A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.

You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.

If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it!@@@1 +Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.@@@0 +Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions.

I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.

I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.

While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in.

When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.

As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.

Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.

One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.

Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.

The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.

David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.

But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.

Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.

Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.

A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff!@@@1 +I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!@@@0 +Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.

In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.

But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.

However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.

From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).

Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.

Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.@@@1 +Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....@@@0 +Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now.@@@1 +How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.@@@0 +In a near future, the ordinary man above any suspicious from the suburb Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is hired by Digicorp, a huge corporation, to be assigned as a spy and steal secrets from their competitors, Sunways. Along his training, Morgan is brainwashed, assumes a new identity of Jack Thursby and travels to boring lectures. In one of them, he is approached by the beautiful and mysterious Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who advises him that nothing is how it seems to be. Morgan acknowledges a new reality, where he does not know who can be trusted.

The unknown "Cypher" was a great surprise for me. This movie has not been released in Brazil, but the engaging and exciting story is quite complex, with many plot points, and with great screenplay, direction and performances. In the very last twist, I recalled Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall". This movie certainly deserves to be watched more than once, and I really did not like the last scene, when the independent spy disposes the disputed disc in the sea. In only know the director Vicenzo Natali from the fantastic "Cube", and this second work I see is also stunning. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available@@@1 +It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?@@@0 +This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2

@@@1 +This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me.

Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.

My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.

Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.@@@0 +This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...

This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.

Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.@@@1 +This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.

Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.

By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.@@@0 +Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.@@@1 +Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.@@@0 +You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.@@@1 +I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin...@@@0 +There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.@@@1 +I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.

So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.@@@0 +- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house?

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.@@@1 +Since most review's of this film are of screening's seen decade's ago I'd like to add a more recent one, the film open's with stock footage of B-17's bombing Germany, the film cut's to Oskar Werner's Hauptmann (captain) Wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to Hitler's Fuehrer Bunker, once inside, they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel, the film then cut's to one of many conference scene's with Albin Skoda giving a decent impression of Adolf Hitler rallying his officer's to "Ultimate Victory" while Werner's character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen's are caught up in a fantasy world-some non-bunker event's are depicted, most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a Russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the Flak unit's and his family's difficulty in surviving-this film suffer's from a number of detail inaccuracies that a German film made only 10 year's after WW2 should not have included; the actor portraying Goebbels (Willy Krause) wear's the same uniform as Hitler, including arm eagle- Goebbels wore a brown Nazi Party uniform with swastika armband-the "SS" soldier's wear German army camouflage, the well documented scene of Hitler awarding the iron cross to boy's of the Hitler Youth is shown as having taken place INSIDE the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly, Hitler's suicide weapon is clearly shown as a Belgian browning model 1922-most account's agree it was a Walther PPK-some bit's of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable, this bit is shown as a cabaret skit, with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose-stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease/belly dance, all by candlelight... this is actually embarrassing to watch-the most incredible bit is when Werner's Captain Wust gain's an audience alone with Skoda's Hitler, Hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench, drugged and delirious, when Werner's character begin's to question him, Hitler start's screaming which bring's in a SS guard who mortally wound's Werner's character in the back with a gunshot-this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account-Werner's character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while Hitler prepare's his own ending, Hitler's farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off-screen, the final second's of the movie show Hitler's funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead Oskar Werner/Hauptmann Wust-this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film's such as the 1973 remake "Hitler: the last 10 day's" or the German film "Downfall" (Der Untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story, these last two film's are based on first person eyewitness account's, with "Hitler: the last 10 day's" being compiled from Gerhard Boldt's autobiography as a staff officer in the Fuehrer Bunker and "Downfall" being done from Hitler's secretary's recollection's, the screen play for "Der Letzte Akte" is taken from American Nuremberg war crime's trial judge Michael Musmanno's book "Ten day's to die", which is more a compilation of event's (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history-it is surprising that Hugh Trevor Roper's account,"The last day's of Hitler" was never made into a film.@@@0 +When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.

The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...

Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.

It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Highly recommended.@@@1 +This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie!

The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.

A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.@@@0 +A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com@@@1 +A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.

My Grade: D@@@0 +I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.

Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.

Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.

The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.@@@1 +And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this?@@@0 +There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.@@@1 +I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!@@@0 +I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.@@@1 +This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.

I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.

The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).

Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.@@@0 +This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****

Remember Extreme ääliöt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video.@@@1 +I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.@@@0 +Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'.@@@1 +Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.@@@0 +This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........@@@1 +A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.@@@0 +This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!@@@1 +I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.@@@0 +Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies.@@@1 +Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!@@@0 +While the prices have gone up a lot, and some of the details have become dated, any homeowner who's struggled with problems of homeownership should get a lot of chuckles out of this movie. I know I did.

Mr. Blandings, a New York ad executive, decides to move his family to the Connecticut suburbs and build himself a nice house there. He gets into one hilarious jam after another, from mortgages to lawsuits to construction difficulties, as the costs and schedule of the construction keep escalating out of control. I thought that the funniest scenes were where Blandings hires a contractor to dig a well for water. They dig down hundreds of feet, but never find water. Yet only a short distance away, a few days later, the basement of his house-to-be floods!

Cary Grant and Myrna Loy give believable performances as the harried Blandings couple overwhelmed by problems they never imagined, and Melvyn Douglas is even better as Blanding's lawyer and family friend.

The only caveat is that social attitudes have changed a lot since 1948. Mrs. Blandings is portrayed as a bit of a naive dimbulb who has no idea how much additional trouble she's causing, and there's a black maid (horrors!). So don't watch this movie through the social lens of 2003, and you'll enjoy it all the more.

@@@1 +This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.

There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.

The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.

Skip this bogus thing.@@@0 +After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.

Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****).@@@1 +First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...

Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.

The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.@@@0 +After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.@@@1 +Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.

It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).

There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.

There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..

Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.

I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.@@@0 +FORGET CREDIBILITY

You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.

"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."

@@@1 +In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe – I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.

These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".

Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.@@@0 +The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.

The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.

The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.

Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.@@@1 +David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.

To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.

Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.

The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.

While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.

He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says "I love creepy boys," perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.

Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.'@@@0 +This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.

Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.

And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action!

Brilliant movie!@@@1 +I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.@@@0 +Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.@@@1 +Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.

This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.

They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.

Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here

See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.@@@0 +Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old?

There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.

The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell.

Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.

The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on.

Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.@@@1 +I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.@@@0 +Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.@@@1 +Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).

Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).

To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.

@@@0 +To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.

It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !@@@1 +Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.

If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.

Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.

As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.

The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.

Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

You'll just love it.@@@0 +I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.@@@1 +Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'

'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.

The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.

'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.

This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.

Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.

Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.

As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.

** out of 4

Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr@@@0 +In Manhattan, the American middle class Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) lives with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and two teenage daughters in a four bedroom and one bathroom only leased apartment. Jim works in an advertising agency raising US$ 15,000.00 a year and feels uncomfortable in his apartment due to the lack of space. When he sees an advertisement of a huge house for sale in the country of Connecticut for an affordable price, he drives with his wife and the real estate agent and decides to buy the old house without any technical advice. His best friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) sends an acquaintance engineer to inspect the house, and the man tells that he should put down the house and build another one. Jim checks the information with other engineers and all of them condemn the place and sooner he finds that he bought a "money pit" instead of a dream house.

"Mr. Blandings Builds his Own House" is an extremely funny comedy, with witty lines and top-notch screenplay. Cary Grant is hilarious in the role of a man moved by the impulse of accomplishing with the American Dream of owning a huge house that finds that made bad choice, while losing his touch in his work and feeling jealous of his friend. In 1986, Tom Hanks worked in a very funny movie visibly inspired in this delightful classic, "The Money Pit". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Lar, Meu Tormento" ("Home, My Torment")@@@1 +First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.@@@0 +Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.

But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.

Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.

The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.

The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.

Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.

I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.

In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.

It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.

Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.

Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.

Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.

Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.

Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.

Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.

It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.

Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)@@@1 +I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos – Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.@@@0 +Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****@@@1 +It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.

Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.

However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.@@@0 +Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing…

Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit…

Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money…

With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie…@@@1 +"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.

It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.

The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.

It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.

No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.@@@0 +I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.

Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...

Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?

'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.

'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10@@@1 +The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?

I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???

I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3.

Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.@@@0 +Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.@@@1 +i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.@@@0 +Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3-@@@1 +This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.

The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.

The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.

I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)@@@0 +A prison cell.Four prisoners-Carrere,a young company director accused of fraud,35 year old transsexual in the process of his transformation, Daisy,a 20 year-old mentally challenged idiot savant and Lassalle,a 60 year-old intellectual who murdered his wife.Behind a stone slab in the cell,mysteriously pulled loose,they discovered a book:the diary of a former prisoner,Danvers,who occupied the cell at the beginning of the century.The diary contains magic formulas that supposedly enable prisoners to escape."Malefique" is one of the creepiest and most intelligent horror films I have seen this year.The film has a grimy,shadowy feel influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft,which makes for a very creepy and unsettling atmosphere.There is a fair amount of gore involved with some imaginative and brutal death scenes and the characters of four prisoners are surprisingly well-developed.It's a shame that Eric Valette made truly horrible remake of "One Missed Call" after his stunning debut.9 out of 10.@@@1 +It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.@@@0 +Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.@@@1 +I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo?@@@0 +I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go "What the f*ck did I just see?" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like "The Grudge" or even "Silent Hill". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be!@@@1 +I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.

Except..

Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!@@@0 +Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.

The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.

I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.

I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10@@@1 +All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.

And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.

The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.@@@0 +This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong?

Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art.@@@1 +As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.@@@0 +Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good.@@@1 +You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.

Episode 'Valentines Pay'

Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end

Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk.

IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.

'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.@@@0 +This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.

Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.

I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.@@@1 +The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set".

She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.@@@0 +In a penitentiary, four prisoners occupy a cell: Carrère (Gérald Laroche), who used his company to commit a fraud and was betrayed by his wife; the drag Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and his protégée, the retarded Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who ate his six months sister; and the intellectual Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), who killed his wife. One night, Carrère finds an ancient journal hidden in a hole in the wall of the cell. They realize that the book was written by Danvers (Geoffrey Carey) in the beginning of the last century and is about black magic. They decide to read and use its content to escape from the prison, when they find the truth about Danvers' fate. "Maléfique" is an original, intriguing and claustrophobic French low-budget horror movie. The story is practically in the same location, does not have any clichés and hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. I am a great fan of French cinema, usually romances, dramas and police stories, but I noted that recently I have seen some good French horror movies, such as "Un Jeu d' Enfants", "Belphegor" and "Dead End". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sinais do Mal" ("Signs of the Evil")@@@1 +I wish I could say that this show was unusual in it's banality,but it is usual in every way.It has the dumb husband,his smarter but boring and conventional wife, along with the idiotic sidekick for "comic" relief-it sorely needs it.Stale predictable jokes, with even more predictable reactions from the laughtrack, punctuate this noxious mental narcotic's nauseatingly unimaginative plot lines to leave me either physically ill, or in a deep sleep more resembling that of an induced coma. But it might be on for a while yet because it gives the average American a personage to which they can truly identify.A "regular" guy just like you and me.I live in the southern U.S, so to me this show is just the opposite of escapism.Down here, that obnoxious character is everywhere, in some form or another.Seeing him on television is brutal overkill.@@@0 +Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.

Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version.@@@1 +This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!@@@0 +Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with… Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.@@@1 +Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.

The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.

I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.

Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!@@@0 +French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.

Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing!@@@1 +This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....@@@0 +Maléfique is a very interesting movie. It is an unholy alloy of triumphs and failures. The central concept is great, three inmates with bizarre personalities are joined by a fourth (who the audience identify with) and they try to escape from their cell using a book of magic that they find within the walls of the cell.

The atmosphere is well-woven, it reminds me of reading about the prison stay of Edmond Dantes' in the Château d'If (prior to becoming the Count of Monte Cristo). The director sets up the feeling that the characters are tied to the cell, particularly the character we are meant to identify with (Carrère - a white-collar criminal whose crime is not specified, but it's obliquely suggested might be fraud). On one occasion Carrère dithers when leaving the cell for exercise and has the cell door shut on him; we never leave the cell, the claustrophobia is unbroken. There are also no shots of the prison outside the cell, and the view through the bars is a longing sunset over a generic prison wall. So even though the film appears to be very modern, it has a very old world feel of incarceration.

The characters are intriguing. We have Marcus, a violent pre-op transsexual who plays an abusive mother to Pâquerette (French for Daisy) a heavily retarded young man. Pâquerette likes to eat everything he finds beautiful, and unfortunately this included his baby sister, hence his current predicament (I like this comment on internalisation, very primitive). Lasalle is a withdrawn, possessed elderly man, in for brutally murdering his wife.

The central message of the movie is that your desires will annihilate you, and there's a ritual that goes with that. I think that's what disturbs me the most, seeing people destroying themselves ritualistically. It has a real life ring to it. The quite simple soundtrack backs this up well, every step deeper into the quicksand is accompanied by the dull ringing of a gong. I'm actually hearing the gong now every time I do something self-destructive.

I think one of the plot problems is that the ends of the characters don't really reinforce the message consistently, particularly with Carrère, also the concept of the book seems to alter throughout the film, not in terms of a successive revelation either. I also think that some of the images we see are a bit amateurish, more by design than execution, such as the famous "vagina eye", and the sodomy of Lasalle, for me, totally hollow images.

At the end the movie it feels like the director is in a rush to get it over with, and some things don't seem logical, for example we've been clumsily led to believe different things about Carrère's child. This doesn't change the fact though that what we have here is that rare bird, a "pure" horror movie. There is no comedic dross or genre segueing, like Cube (1997/Natali), the obvious movie to compare it to, it's a total immersion experience, where you feel as if you are in the cell with the characters. This last comment I make about it being a "pure" experience I think is something others have mentioned as well so that is a fairly unanimous point.

On a personal note my favourite part of the film is when Lasalle talks about his past as a librarian. He very vividly describes a scene where he goes to work one day and sits down in his usual place in the centre of a room where all the books are arranged in a circle around him. The books seem to be chanting to him that he will never contain their knowledge. This prompts Lasalle to go insane. That really is the problem with an obsession with understanding and knowledge. It's something I myself have felt.

One final comment is that two of the quite well-received comments on the board have confused the characters' names. To convince yourself that Lasalle is the older librarian character, simply click on Philippe Laudenbach's page and you will see he was born in 1936.@@@1 +This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie@@@0 +I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.@@@1 +There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.

The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.

Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.@@@0 +I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.

It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.

Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.

Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!

Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.@@@1 +Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.@@@0 +If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...

Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.

With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.

Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia@@@1 +If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.

The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.

It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.

I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.

So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.@@@0 +The film opens with Bill Coles (Melvyn Douglas) telling a story about how his best friend--make that client--Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) and his family are tightly packed into a small New York apartment, with not enough closet space and way too few bathrooms. When Jim's wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy), wants to renovate the apartment, advertising exec Jim falls in love with (or falls for!) an ad for a house. Once he's purchased the house, bills and frustration pile up incessantly as everything that can go wrong with the building of Jim's 'dream house' goes wrong.

One of three collaborations between Grant and Loy, this is a charming little comedy--not very taxing, with no real great message, but a great way to spend an hour or two. The laughs are there right from the start, when the alarm clock goes off and Jim tries to shut it off, only to be thwarted at every turn by Muriel. The timing and delivery of the comedic lines and situations can only be given by a couple of seasoned pros, and that's just what Grant and Loy give us: polished performances, simple chemistry, and a lot of fun. Myrna Loy is in a pretty thankless role (it's evident that Grant's character Jim gets the lion share of the lines and the acting, and Grant, as always, pulls both off with remarkable aplomb), but she gives Muriel a colour, life and bite that only Myrna Loy can give a character. Melvyn Douglas plays wry amusement to perfection as well, never hitting a single wrong note.

One of my favourite scenes has definitely got to be when Bill gets himself locked in the 'store room', and Jim goes to 'save' him... only to get everyone trapped inside! Every little problem that pops up for the Blandings renovation project--including petty jealousy and an ad campaign for 'Wham'--seems to bring together everything that *could* go wrong with building a new house but makes it believable and an enjoyable watch. 8/10@@@1 +This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."

"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance."

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.@@@0 +Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise!@@@1 +Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!

I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?

It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)@@@0 +"Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.

The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.

Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.

Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.

The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.

The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.

Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10@@@1 +A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.

This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.

I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.

Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)?

Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.@@@0 +When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!@@@1 +The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!

Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???

Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!

A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!!@@@0 +I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...

The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.

Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).

The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.

The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.

Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.

If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

Enjoy!@@@1 +This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.@@@0 +My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).

I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.@@@1 +I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.

The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.

The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.

Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.

Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary.

While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.

I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks.

The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.@@@0 +Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!@@@1 +I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.

At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.

First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.

Figure that out.@@@0 +Monty Berman and Dennis Spooner followed up 'The Baron' with this, a fantasy series about three superhuman spies which preempted 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. It was a favourite of mine when I was a youngster, and I enjoy watching it still. Stuart Damon and William Gaunt had an unmistakable on-screen chemistry as Craig Stirling and Richard Barrett, while the luscious Alexandra Bastedo pouted her way through her role as Sharron Macready. The late Anthony Nicholls made a wonderfully gruff Tremayne. By far the best episodes were those written by Tony Williamson, Terry Nation and Brian Clemens, while Spooner's own 'The Interrogation' compared favourably with 'The Prisoner'. I regret that there was never a second series; the concept had so much life left in it. Would Craig and Richard have been competitors for Sharron's affections? What if Tremayne had learned of the Champions' powers? Did the Champions have any other abilities other than those we saw? We never found out, alas.@@@1 +I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?@@@0 +I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.@@@1 +What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.

Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.

Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?

What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..

Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?

Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.

Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.@@@0 +i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.@@@1 +Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)@@@0 +The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.

The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.

The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)

Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.@@@1 +"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.

Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru.

Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.

I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.

The roles are well played but the story is thin.@@@0 +Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.

Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.

Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.

The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.

The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.@@@1 +Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.@@@0 +This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.@@@1 +It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.@@@0 +I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...

It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.

I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!@@@1 +Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.@@@0 +Real cool, smart movie. I loved Sheedy's colors, especially the purple car. Alice Drummond is Wise And Wonderful as Stella. I liked Sheedy's reference to how her face had gotten fatter. The roadside dance scene is brilliant. Really liked this one.@@@1 +Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.@@@0 +I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy:

"It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless"@@@1 +I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure@@@0 +"I'll Take You There" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.@@@1 +Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.

I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)@@@0 +This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.@@@1 +This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."@@@0 +For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.

This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.

If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.@@@1 +Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....@@@0 +At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in.

long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.

i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....

it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....

what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.

well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try?

i would@@@1 +I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.@@@0 +Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.

After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.

The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.

It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.

Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies."@@@1 +Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.

Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time.

We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's

based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.

I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I

didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended.

*/*****@@@0 +"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.

Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.

My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.@@@1 +I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.@@@0 +If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while!@@@1 +Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.@@@0 +I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now!@@@1 +This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.

- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line

Yuck!

@@@0 +I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.@@@1 +The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.

Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....@@@0 +it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.

it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.@@@1 +Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?@@@0 +I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.@@@1 +This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!@@@0 +Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.

The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?@@@1 +Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10@@@0 +Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.@@@1 +Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.

Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?

But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137@@@0 +I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.

Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".@@@1 +Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.@@@0 +First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.

I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver.

It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.

However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.

Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.@@@1 +The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.@@@0 +I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!@@@1 +honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.

Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!!@@@0 +I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.@@@1 +Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me "what did she say that for?" and "why did he do that?" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply "bringing realism" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. "Prehysteria!" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.@@@0 +In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best.@@@1 +I read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.@@@0 +First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.

This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.

What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers.@@@1 +You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.

A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.

I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...

umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go.@@@0 +OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.@@@1 +While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.

My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.

I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.@@@0 +I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.@@@1 +I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!

However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.

1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.@@@0 +Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.@@@1 +This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.

Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.

As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough.@@@0 +

I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.@@@1 +A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.@@@0 +I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(@@@1 +TYSON

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King!@@@0 +I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids!@@@1 +As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.

The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)@@@0 +I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.@@@1 +Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western – which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch – the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise – and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame.@@@0 +The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.@@@1 +This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.

The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.

Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.

The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.

There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.

It's an OK film but instantly forgettable.@@@0 +This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.@@@1 +Fairly good movie, but not a true story.

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?

Jens@@@0 +Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable.@@@1 +A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept.@@@0 +Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.@@@1 +This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.@@@0 +Life's going not to badly for Harry Mitchell, he's an ex-air force major (plus nifty little pension I imagine), who's raking in the cash for a patent he's developed (fusing titanium and steel via explosive process, creating super metal fit for NASA), and his wife of twenty-odd years has kept herself in pretty good nick. He's got a nice little pad in LA. I like to see visions of the 80s consumer dream, and you get a good slice here, what with the restored silver Jag (a series 1 E-type roadster) for him, and the gorgeous antique dolls house for her (as well as I'm sure other trinkets and boys toys). There's always got to be more though hasn't there? So Harry let's himself get caught up in some romantic shenanigans (you're only as old as the woman you're feeling). As in many films noir, one mistake, in an otherwise blotch-less life, leads to a downwards arc for Harry.

Three blackmailers leech onto him. These are where the value are for me, great character actors playing very believable roles. Bobby Shy (played by Clarence Williams III) is a black ex-con who is capable of performing incredible psychopathic acts in order to avoid jail and punish double-crossers. He's reminiscent of Pluto, the vicious black ex-con psychopath from Carl Franklin's well-regarded neo-noir "One False Move" (1992). There's a similar character motivation I believe. Both men have had enough of the man, and well pretty much everyone, in extremis. Robert Trebor plays Leo Franks, a fat lily-livered pansy who runs a nudie parlour where gents can photograph nude models at $25 for half an hour, and $50 for a whole hour (did anyone else guffaw at the lack of discount?). He's in over his head, and it's great to watch Trebor acting when Leo starts to feel the heat, believable breakdown. John Glover wins as Alan Raimy, who is the brains of the plot, an actually brilliant man who becomes a pornographer and turns to a life of crime out of sheer sociopathic ennui. He's a sexual sadist and does a few particularly unpleasant things during the movie, including what I believe is a pretty well-implied rape (pay attention to his RAP sheet readout, it's easily missed, and read between the lines for the motel scene with "Slim").

In common with One False Move, though not exclusively, I think the real impact of the movie is in the unusually communicative scenes of violence.

So far so good but I think there's a real problem with the film. Harry Mitchell is told at one point that he has his "tit in the wringer". My problem is that Harry Mitchell is played by Roy Scheider. Roy Scheider protagonists never lose, they're self-sure and smooth, but not in an annoying way. I feel I'm being asked to believe that his character is in peril, the movie relies on this for dramatic tension; however I didn't believe it. For me it's like being asked to believe that Sandra Bullock's character is going to end up sleeping alone by the end of a romantic drama, or Stephen Seagal's character is going to get taken down by the baddies (did actually happen in one movie but was done deliberately for shock value). Roy Scheider doesn't convince as an adulterer either, you don't feel any annoyance with him at all, his character is Teflon-coated.

It also felt like a movie that took some cuts. At 110 minutes it still feels underdeveloped: Harry's wife, Ann Margaret, is pretty much a cardboard cutout, an extension of Harry, her back story as a politician running for office receives scant attention. The effect that the affair has on Harry's marriage isn't properly communicated. This could be a Frankenheimer problem, he's not known for character development. I never felt that Harry was dealing with little more than an overtly annoying and erroneous tax claim from the IRS.

There is good sleazy violent noir content in this film, but I feel that to be in the excellent bracket that the casting of Harry could have been done better (no disrespect to the great Roy Scheider). The film felt short, even with the long running time, and I think could have taken some more fleshing out.

But you really can't forget the sleaze, like the deliciously pervy scene of Harry taking photos of Doreen in the nudie parlour.@@@1 +Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.@@@0 +52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.@@@1 +When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.@@@0 +This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.@@@1 +If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.@@@0 +This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking "but I loved GET SHORTY" you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the "feel" for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday.@@@1 +This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.@@@0 +I've always liked this John Frankenheimer film. Good script by Elmore Leonard and the main reason this wasn't just another thriller is because of Frankenheimer. His taut direction and attention to little details make all the difference, he even hired porn star Ron Jeremy as a consultant! You can make a case that its the last good film Roy Scheider made. I've always said that Robert Trebor gave just a terrific performance. Clarence Williams III got all the publicity with his scary performance and he's excellent also but I really thought Trebor stood out. Frankenheimer may not be as proud of this film as others but it is an effective thriller full of blackmail, murder, sex, drugs, and real porno actors appear in sleazy parts. What can you say about a film that has Ann Margaret being shot up with drugs and raped? A guilty pleasure to say the least. Vanity has a real sleazy role and a very young Kelly Preston makes an early appearance. A classic exploitive thriller that shouldn't be forgotten.@@@1 +Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !@@@0 +Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+.@@@1 +I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.

But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.

Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.

It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.

After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.

I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.@@@0 +Spoilers!

From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!

If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?

After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up.

I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"

This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place.

Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty.

9 of 10 stars.

So sayeth the Hound.

Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!@@@1 +This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.

One and half stars.@@@0 +Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.@@@1 +Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the "film makers were then attacked" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.

Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by "the film makers were attacked" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said "Someone should beat those two kids up." The picture on the cover, "the chase" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.

I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's "Roger & Me", but if "Roger & Me" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, "Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.

Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, "HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!".

Morgan "Please Like Me" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.

Avoid like the plague.@@@0 +Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.

All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.

Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context.@@@1 +The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.

In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.

One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.

But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.

No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.

I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.@@@0 +Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making "boring." You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

"HealtH" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.@@@1 +This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.@@@0 +This is the definite Lars von Trier Movie, my favorite, I rank it higher than "Breaking the waves" or the latest "Dancer in the Dark"... I simply love the beauty of the picture...the framing is so original; acting is wonderful, A MUST SEE.@@@1 +I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.

There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.

Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.

'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.

Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.

And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.

Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.

To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.

I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.

A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.@@@0 +This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.

Season 1

1. The Sopranos: 5/5

2. 46 Long: 4.5/5

3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5

4. Meadowlands: 4/5

5. College:

6. Pax Soprana: 5/5

7. Down Neck: 4.5/5

8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5

9. Boca: 4.5/5

10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5

11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5

12. Isabella: 5/5

13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5@@@1 +Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.

God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted@@@0 +The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......@@@1 +I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering – literally – depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.@@@0 +Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.@@@1 +I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.@@@0 +"The Godfather" of television, but aside from it's acclaim and mobster characters, the two are nothing alike. Tony Soprano is forced to go to a psychiatrist after a series of panic attacks. His psychiatrist learns that Tony is actually part of two families -- in one family he is a loving father yet not-so-perfect-husband, and in the other family he is a ruthless wiseguy. After analysis, Dr. Melfi concludes that Tony's problems actually derive from his mother Livia, who's suspected to have borderline-personality disorder. Gandolfini is rightfully praised as the main character; yet Bracco and Marchand aren't nearly as recognized for their equally and talented performances as the psychiatrist and mother, respectively. Falco, Imperioli and DeMatteo are acclaimed for their brilliant supporting roles. Van Zandt (from the E-Street Band) plays his first and only role as Tony's best friend, and is quite convincing and latching. Chianese, the only recurring actor to have actually appeared in a Godfather film, plays Tony's uncle and on-and-off nemesis. Many fans also enjoyed characters played by Pastore, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, Pantoliano, Lip, Sciorra and Buscemi. Tony's children are "okay" but not notable (with the exception of Iler's stunning performance in the third-to-last episode, "The Second Coming"); Sirico and Schirripa are unconvincing and over-the-top, but the show is too strong for them to hold it back. Even as the show continues for over six season, it ceases to have a dull or predictable moment.

**** (out of four)@@@1 +OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest...@@@0 +As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.@@@1 +I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.

I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.

The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.

The special effects are bad.

The acting is bad.

The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.

I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.

I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.

And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.@@@0 +Though "The Sopranos" is yet another gift from the megahit "The Godfather" and sequels, which dramatized and to a certain extent glamorized the mafia, "The Sopranos" takes another tack. No suited up, classy mobsters here with homes in Lake Tahoe and stakes in Vegas casinos - these guys are goombahs, with a front of waste management, who deal with things that fall off the back of trucks, topless bars, protection money - in short, what the neighborhood mobs were all about.

Colorful characters dominate this series, which doesn't hold back on the sex and graphic violence. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mob head with a wife and two children, living in New Jersey, who suffers from panic attacks as he tries to balance his biological family with his mafia one. To get to the bottom of his attacks, he sees a psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), who is afraid of him and yet attracted to him at the same time. Tony's henchman - Paulie, his nephew Christopher, his Uncle Junior (the titular head of the mob), his good friend Pussy - are all fully fleshed-out characters.

As we learn going through the series, there are enemies not only from without, but from within, and one of those enemies includes Tony's sickly but horrible mother (Nancy Marchand), who convinces Junior that Tony is a danger to him. Tony's sister Janice, meanwhile, is searching for money in her mother's house with a stethoscope and a Geiger counter. Tony has mistress problems, and a wife (Edie Falco) who puts up with a lot because she loves him, all the while keeping ties to her Catholic religion. "The church frowns on divorce," she tells one woman contemplating a split. "Let the Pope live with him," is the response. As far as Tony's mistress problems, his psychiatrist points out that Tony is attracted to demanding women for whom nothing is ever enough, and asks him if it sounds familiar. Yeah, it sounds like his mother.

I'm of Italian descent, and yes, I'm sick of Italians being shown in a negative light and everyone assuming all Italians are mobsters. Yet you can't help liking this show, which is a constant reminder of our culture. (Thanksgiving, it's pointed out, isn't turkey and sweet potato pie - it's the antipasto, the manicotti, the meatballs and escarole, and then the bird!) Not to mention, the right-on pronunciation of words like melenzana (mullinyan), escarole (scarole), manicotti (manigot) etc. The only un-Italian thing about Tony is that he doesn't have a finished basement, something unheard of in the rest of my family (except my parents never had one either).

The standouts in this show are Gandolfini, as a ruthless gangster on antidepressants, Falco, who is brilliant as his wife, and Bracco as the tortured Jennifer. But everyone is excellent. If you can take the violence and the language, this is a great show, an unrelenting portrait of New Jersey mob life.@@@1 +IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...@@@0 +The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.

Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.

James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.

Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.

The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.

Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).

Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit.@@@1 +I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.

This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.

The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong.

The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away.@@@0 +The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.

The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it...@@@1 +This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.@@@0 +Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.@@@1 +Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.

The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.

As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.

In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!@@@0 +The Sopranos stands out as an airtight, dynamic exploration of American life, and how the American experience is shaped and defined by money. By setting the story in the milieu of the underworld, David Chase eliminates all barriers to a grunt, low to the ground and outright mean deconstruction of the post-modern era.

Every character represents a facet of American industry. Tony Soprano exemplifies the beleaguered working stiff, torn between familial duty and a need to keep his "business" on an even keel. The convergence of these two things is the imperative that keeps the story moving forward. The characters of Christopher, Paulie, and Bobby reflect the loyal - but self-serving underlings present in every enterprise, who are trusted out of necessity rather than merit. With the character of Ralph, Joe Pantoliano essays a brilliant interpretation of the charismatic psychopath, a twisted businessman who's flourishes of violence are tragically outweighed by his stunning earning power. And Dominic Chianese is the ultimate symbol of the antiquated old-guard, which maintains power through established relationships and the need of the up- and-comers to deflect blame.

Though abrasive and occasionally disturbing, The Sopranos has earned its place as the ultimate TV drama.

PS A good companion piece to Chase's series would be The Shield, another violent drama that manages to make the ugliest of characters interesting.@@@1 +I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!

I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)

==Here comes spoilers==

The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!@@@0 +I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie.@@@1 +One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.

If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?

I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.@@@0 +I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.

I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).

Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....

Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).@@@1 +I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.@@@0 +The Sopranos is perhaps the most mind-opening series you could possibly ever want to watch. It's smart, it's quirky, it's funny - and it carries the mafia genre so well that most people can't resist watching. The best aspect of this show is the overwhelming realism of the characters, set in the subterranean world of the New York crime families. For most of the time, you really don't know whether the wise guys will stab someone in the back, or buy them lunch.

Further adding to the realistic approach of the characters in this show is the depth of their personalities - These are dangerous men, most of them murderers, but by God if you don't love them too. I've laughed at their wisecracks, been torn when they've made err in judgement, and felt scared at the sheer ruthlessness of a serious criminal.

The suburban setting of New Jersey is absolutely perfect for this show's subtext - people aren't always as they seem, and the stark contrast between humdrum and the actions taken by these seemingly petty criminals weigh up to even the odds.

If you haven't already, you most definitely should.@@@1 +Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.

The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.

The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.

***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.

1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can.@@@0 +Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it.@@@1 +Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.

The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.

The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.

Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.@@@0 +I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.@@@1 +I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.@@@0 +It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......

From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!

While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)

But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?

Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.

All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled.@@@1 +I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.@@@0 +I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1@@@1 +One previous reviewer called this film "pure visual joy" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. "High Art" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since "Seven". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty?@@@0 +"The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4@@@1 +This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.@@@0 +Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.@@@1 +Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.

Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities.

The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.

Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy".

This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.

Give me Smiley any day.@@@0 +The "gangster" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichés that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you.@@@1 +This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police.

Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.

Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity@@@0 +There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV@@@1 +Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building.@@@0 +This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now.@@@1 +The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.@@@0 +Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons.

6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).

I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever.

Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase.@@@1 +You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".

The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.

The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").

In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.

Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.

I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek.@@@0 +As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance?@@@1 +I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.

It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...

This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.

Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.

This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!@@@0 +When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.

I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.

It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.

I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will.@@@1 +I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").

Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.@@@0 +Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)

I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.

Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading.@@@1 +Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.

Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.

What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.

The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.@@@0 +THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)

Number 1 - Television Show of all Time

Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.

James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.

While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.

The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.

Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.

Simply exceptional.

10/10@@@1 +I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.

First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all.

*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*

Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.@@@0 +What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.@@@1 +Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.

This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.

The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me.@@@0 +The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.

Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.

Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.

The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.

The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.

With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined.@@@1 +Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.@@@0 +I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.

I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.

I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.

In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended.@@@1 +I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.

We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.

Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).

I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.

... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.@@@0 +First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life.@@@1 +As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.@@@0 +I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.

The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.

The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.

Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.

It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.

Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.

All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it@@@1 +Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.

The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life.@@@0 +This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.

As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.

Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as "Michael J Fox" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.

What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.

The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same.@@@1 +I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.

I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.@@@0 +Jon Voight is brilliant in Midnight Cowboy, but Hoffman's performance, though reminiscent of his later turn in Rainman, is the kind of performance that keeps me watching movies. As a portrayal of a New York character, only Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Bill Butcher in Gangs of New York comes to mind as comparable, and Day doesn't give his character the emotional depth that Hoffman gives Ratso.

It's typical of Hoffman's way of acting that the actor we tend to identify most with Midnight Cowboy is Voight. I think Hoffman is one of the 4 or 5 best actors in the history of film at playing off the people around him in such a way that he raises their performances far above their normal levels.

Voight's Buck is so naive that he would float out of the film altogether, except that Ratso pulls him down - pulls him down, but also teaches him, a lot about how to survive and, more importantly, how to live.

Midnight Cowboy is a movie about escape that turns into a movie about finding yourself. I think that, as gritty a movie as it is, it has a very beautiful message, that no matter how much a loser you might be (Ratso clearly defines "loser"), if you can find a way to be true to yourself, you are in possession of the secret of life, and you might even be able to share that insight with someone else.

I can't help but compare Midnight Cowboy to Klute, from a few years later, which I think is more like a movie about finding yourself that turns into a movie about escape.@@@1 +Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?

For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?…. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.

Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.

Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.

In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.@@@0 +I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.

The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.

I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason.@@@1 +First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.

Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.

I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.

4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.@@@0 +Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.@@@1 +A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."

Lame.

Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.

The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.

One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.

This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.@@@0 +Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......@@@1 +Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.@@@0 +Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.

'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.

The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.

Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.

While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.

Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.

'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.

*** ½ out of 4@@@1 +This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee.@@@0 +What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.

This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.

If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.@@@1 +What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.

One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.@@@0 +"Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.

The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10)@@@1 +This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.

Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.

Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone.@@@1 +All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.

This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.

0 out of 10!@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.@@@1 +Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.@@@0 +Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.

A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the "end of innocence" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.

JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend "Ratzo" dreams of living in.

But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting "Midnight Cowboy" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.

Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life.@@@1 +There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.@@@0 +Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, "The King of Comedy". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as "Dallas Doll" (1994) or "Dinner Rush" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

"Without You I'm Nothing" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", for instance, would look a lot different if "Without You I'm Nothing" didn't exist.@@@1 +Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!

This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!

One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!@@@0 +John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.

Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.

Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'

Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.

'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.@@@1 +I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.@@@0 +"Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).

The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.

Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).

It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all.@@@1 +Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!@@@0 +Just kidding.

Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.

While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.

Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.

8.5/10@@@1 +This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)

The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...

I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.

It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.

See it and laugh!@@@0 +Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.

What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene.

The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.@@@1 +Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."

First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!

So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.

And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...

Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.

He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.

Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.

The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.

It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman.@@@1 +This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.

Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.

The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.

You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick.@@@0 +After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.@@@1 +Where to start ?! . . . I feel ... violated! Thats right, violated! I just spent 1.5hrs of my life, 1.5hrs that I could have spent doing something more useful, like watching paint dry, on this so called horror flick.

Its not scary, its not funny, its not dramatic, its no action, its nothing...

Its predictable, its boring, its tragic...

I might come of a bit harsh here, but watch this movie and you will feel the same way ... or ... no, don't watch it...unless you want to feel violated also.@@@0 +Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****@@@1 +Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.@@@0 +It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".

The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.

In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.

The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger".@@@1 +I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.

And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.

The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".

So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)@@@0 +'Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.

The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason.@@@1 +This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.

The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).

The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past.

Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.@@@0 +Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.@@@1 +Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...

Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.

I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...

Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...

But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.

Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.

3/10@@@0 +At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things.

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!)

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.@@@1 +In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!@@@0 +I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)

So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.

The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.

Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.

Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)

4.5/5@@@1 +I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.@@@0 +The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).

I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.

This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.

The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.

I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.

I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.

I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.

On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.

Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.

Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences.@@@1 +DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...

Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.

Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?

Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.

DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...@@@0 +Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since.

Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences.

It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools.

10/10@@@1 +Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)

NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10@@@0 +Virile, but naive, big Joe Buck leaves his home in Big Spring, Texas, and hustles off to the Big Apple in search of women and big bucks. In NYC, JB meets up with frustration, and with "Ratso" Rizzo, a scruffy but cordial con artist. Somehow, this mismatched pair manage to survive each other which in turn helps both of them cope with a gritty, sometimes brutal, urban America, en route to a poignant ending.

Both funny and depressing, our "Midnight Cowboy" rides head-on into the vortex of cyclonic cultural change, and thus confirms to 1969 viewers that they, themselves, have been swept away from the 1950's age of innocence, and dropped, Dorothy and Toto like, into the 1960's Age of Aquarius.

The film's direction is masterful; the casting is perfect; the acting is top notch; the script is crisp and cogent; the cinematography is engaging; and the music enhances all of the above. Deservedly, it won the best picture Oscar of 1969, and I would vote it as one of the best films of that cyclonic decade.@@@1 +Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?@@@0 +In my opinion, this is one of the greatest movies ever made in America and it deserved every single award it won and it's place on the AFI Top 100 list (though it's shamefully too low on the IMDB Top 250 list, at only #183 as of this writing). If you enjoy acting of the highest calibre (Voight and Hoffman are a superb match), well-drawn characterizations and inventive direction, editing and cinematography, you'll love this just as much as I did. Schlesinger paints a vivid, always credible picture of the late 60s New York City scene and it's many victims struggling to overcome personal demons and survive amidst the amorality, poverty and hopelessness of 42nd Street, New York City.

The filmmaking techniques employed here brilliantly capture the feel of the underground New York film movement (and of the city) and are nothing less than dazzling. I've seen many ideas (including the rapid-fire editing, the handling of the voice-over flashbacks, the drug/trip sequences and the cartoonish face slipped in during a murder scene to convey angst and terror) stolen by other filmmakers.

The relationship between Joe and Ratso is handled in such a way as to be viewed as an unusually strong friendship OR having it's homosexual underpinnings. I think the director handled this in a subtle way not to cop out to the censorship of the times, but rather to concentrate his energies on the importance of a strong human connection in life, whether it be sexual or not.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a brave, moving film of magnitude, influence and importance that has lost absolutely none of it's impact over the years, so if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on a true American classic. I recommend this film to everyone.

Score: 10 out of 10.@@@1 +This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)

The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.

Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?

Overall boring and laughable horror.@@@0 +Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.@@@1 +The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely.@@@0 +I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.@@@1 +Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...

Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10

www.ResidentHazard.com@@@0 +Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.

John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy.

Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go.

The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.

Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.

Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.

The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones.

7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.@@@1 +Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.

No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.

The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.

For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.

It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please.@@@0 +Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of ****@@@1 +What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!@@@0 +This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !)

You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.

There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.

Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition.@@@1 +I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.@@@0 +This is one of those unfortunate films that suffered an even more sad, unfortunate death at the box office. I saw this film at a local art cinema,in revival form,shortly after it tanked in mainstream cinemas. It certainly deserves to be approached a second time (or even a third). Sandra B. takes it to the limit by doing spoken word & taking on some well known songs in this piece (her version of Hank William's 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' could easily move you to tears). Maybe someday, audiences will be ready to take this film a bit more seriously (but not without some well placed laughs,too). The film moves at a brisk pace (thanks to some nice editing),so that some viewers will not find it stale & boring. Perhaps a revival is just down the pipeline.@@@1 +We saw this on the shelf at the local video store, saw "Coppola" in the credits and got excited. That was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. I could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably, or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. In general, the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. The sound in particular was absolutely dreadful, especially in the scenes shot in the little bar; the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. Very disappointing.@@@0 +This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindström are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.

"Vuxna människor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldn´t be better off without it.@@@1 +This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.@@@0 +This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!

All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!

Highly recommended.@@@1 +"Nacho Libre" (2006)

Directed By: Jared Hess

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog)

Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.

Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor…of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.

The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.

"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just…well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.

Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)@@@0 +High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see.@@@1 +Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.@@@0 +I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\

All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.

I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.

Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.@@@1 +We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.@@@0 +In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.@@@1 +What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?@@@0 +Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.

Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.

Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival.@@@1 +I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.

Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...

What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!

Just skip this piece of garbage

P.S. (sorry for my English)@@@0 +George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer.

In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)

As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.@@@1 +I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....@@@0 +A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.

Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.

Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for.@@@1 +Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...

Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.

I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"

But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.@@@0 +Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.@@@1 +- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -

I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered.

I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny.

It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.

I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.@@@0 +when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie@@@1 +Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.

She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.

More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.@@@0 +Did Sandra (yes, she must have) know we would still be here for her some nine years later?

See it if you haven't, again if you have; see her live while you can.@@@1 +This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.

All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.

The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.

What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.

Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.

If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.

What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.@@@0 +There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better!

I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better!@@@1 +There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.

Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.

Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles....@@@0 +Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).@@@1 +Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.

O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.

The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!

This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.@@@0 +Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!@@@1 +2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.@@@0 +Ah, clichés, clichés, clichés; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller.@@@1 +If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.@@@0 +Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.

Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.

Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.@@@1 +Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better.

This movie was a total disaster.@@@0 +So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)@@@1 +Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?@@@0 +Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I´d probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you´re nine you just don´t care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I´m kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year´s eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It´s like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can´t see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don´t mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast´s balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don´t mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff.@@@1 +Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.@@@0 +*****Spoilers herein*****

What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?

Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.

I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.

The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.

I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children.@@@1 +In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.

All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.

The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.

Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.@@@0 +MINOR SPOILER

Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10.@@@1 +Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.

The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?

Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.@@@0 +"Pet Sematary" succeeds on two major situations. First, it's a scary Horror movie. Those that just aren't produced in these days. Second, it's an emotional, clever movie overall. So if you are looking for chills, scares, creepiness and visually stunning settings, great acting, dialongs, and gruesome effects; this is the movie you are looking for. A classic now and truly a must see for any Horror fan.

Probably, the best adaptation to any of King's novels. The events feel a little rushed compared with the novel, but that doesn't means that this underrated movie isn't a complete Horror/Drama accomplishment.

Stephen King's novel is widely known for being very emotional and gruesome at the same time. The movie captures the same feeling mainly because there's a great character development and you can feel the loving relationship between it's members. Then, when everything seems to be happiness (technically happy, because the title "Pet Sematary" does not offers appiness!) a tragic event changes the movie's atmosphere, now it turns very dark. The movie has a sinister feeling since the opening credits, but after Gage is killed the movie becomes sad, gray, creepy. Dealing with the loss of a baby son is something that can ruin a family's entire life, and "Pet Sematary" proves it dramatically.

The legend behind the pet sematary is more than a myth that no one wants to experience, but sadness and desperation lead an emotionally destroyed father to give it a shot. Sadly enough, the legend comes true and baby Gage returns from the dead. The previous encounter with the pet sematary legend turned out to be a tragedy but this time it's something much, much worse. What will happened with the lives of our All American family? Could Pascow prevent this tragedy? What is it with the surreal nightmares?

Watch "Pet Sematary" to witness one of the most touching, emotional Horror movies of recent times. You won't regret. The acting is very good although I didn't dig the actor who portrayed the father. He didn't seem disturbed enough when the situations asked for his desperation. But that's just my opinion. Denise Crosby truly delivered a great performance and worked perfect as the noble, tender mother. Baby Gage was amazing even on his creepy parts. *Shivers*. Overall this is a great classic of all time and a disturbing movie that touches people's deepest fears... the loss of someone you love, the dead returning to life, and a feeling of desperation.

Something is for sure... I don't wanna be buried, in a pet sematary!!@@@1 +Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.

The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).

Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.

Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.@@@0 +If you ever have the chance to see Sandra Bernhard live in person, you better move on it sweetie. I saw her last year in Los Angeles at the opening of her Everything Bad and Beautiful tour and i still can't believe that i was in the first row, and lucky enough to experience such a phenomenal show. She is now in New York with the show and it coincides with the release of her groundbreaking stunner, "Without You I'm Nothing". We have lost Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Nina Simone, but Sandra is still with us. Patti Smith is missing in action, but not Sandra. Barbara Streisand continues to peep her head out once in awhile but Sandra more than makes up for where Babs leaves off. Okay, i want it known, Ms. Bernhard is a little of these influential entertainers and more. I really wanted to push this film because of its truth, honesty, humor, eclectic songs (ranging from Laura Nyro, Sylvester, Nina Simone, Prince), and a script that defines the decadence, joy, sadness, ups and downs of the 70's and 80's. It is my opinion that many (and i mean, MANY) comics have lifted, okay outright stolen, so much from this show if not from Sandra herself. I won't name names but come on, people, you and i know who they are. See, the thing is, Bernhard plays by her own rules. This movie shows, as does her live performances, that she is a performer who has stayed true to the old school of show business, as well as pushing forward. Her performances are reminiscent of smoky jazz clubs (during the time of Miles Davis,Coltrane,Monk), 70's TV shows, intimate cabaret acts and concerts that are reminiscent of everyone from Judy Garland to Joan Jett. Most comedians couldn't even touch where Sandra is coming from or going to. So, here i was, a year ago, watching Sandra at the Silent Movie Theater, in total awe and joy. I wanted to meet her after the show, give her something that meant something to me, that, hopefully would mean something to her. But i listen to my copy of Giving Til it Hurts, and just thank her in a prayer, of sorts for making me laugh, making me think, making me FEEL. You can't deny this lady's presence and you certainly cannot deny the talent that just rushes from the stage. She's still here, damn it, even after the release of Without You I'm Nothing, some 15 years ago. And she looks great, by the way. I know this firsthand, walking from the theater one audience member said to another, "She is SO FUNNY..and she still looks incredible!!! If you can't experience her live yet, please see this movie. As for me, I do hope that Sandra will see this. You've meant a heck of a lot to me, gotten me through some tough crazy times. If you can send me an email, please do. If not, knowing that you are still kicking it out and will continue to do so, is enough for me. Come on, people, give it up for the Lady!!!!@@@1 +I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.@@@0 +Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.@@@1 +The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.

This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.@@@0 +This is one of the creepiest, scariest and most heartbreaking horror movie EVER!

Dr Creed (Louise) and his family moving in to new home with his wife (Rachel), Daughter (Ellie) and little son (Gage) Everything seems normal until Dr Creed loses one his patient who had a terrible head injury,Then he is haunted by the ghost know as Victor takes him to the Pet Sematarty and show him that where the dead come to life.

Louis not knowing if that was all dream and is talking to Ellie who worried about her cat that could be killed by lorry and then later on Rachel tells Louis that it really hard for to talk about death because of her sister Zelda who was really sick (As we see in a flashback how sick her sister really was and this is one of the most creepiest scene ever!)

The next day Louis gets a call from Jed saying there cat as been killed by lorry and Jed take him to place where Victor the Ghost told him not to go! And bury the Cat, His wife and kids have go to see their Grandparents and Louise is home alone shocked to see the cat is back and now it as evil in it eyes so he goes to see Jed then Jed tell him that he also buried his dog there too (As we seen other flashback).

Later on in the movie The Family out having Picnic, Gage is playing with kite and Gage say's I drop it", The wind blow the rod near the road where a lorry coming at fast past, Gage is get closer to road, Louis is rushing to get him, The most HEARTBREAKING scene in any horror movie will leave with your Jaw on floor or Shivers will go down your back when you hear Louis screams, Soon he missing him so much, Louis then buries Gage in same place where is buried the Cat.

The scariest thing about this movie is that some scenes in this movie are not too far from really life.

This movie is just Amazing and the acting from everyone was great! 10 out 10@@@1 +The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.

If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").

Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.

But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.

Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!@@@0 +I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.

I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.

The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.

@@@1 +Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.@@@0 +"Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.@@@1 +"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.

Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.

The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.

This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.@@@0 +Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.@@@1 +This is a truly terrible film.

I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.

Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.

I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?

Please, please, please do not watch this film!@@@0 +As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.@@@1 +Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.@@@0 +In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.@@@1 +I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.

I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.

0 out of **** stars.@@@0 +Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.

Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.

When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.

Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.

This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from "The Exorcist." The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.

The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.

9/10@@@1 +The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.

Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]

Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.

I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.

Avoid

* / **** (one star out of four)

@@@0 +I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.@@@1 +This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)

I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.

This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.@@@0 +Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out.@@@1 +Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!@@@0 +Well, this might be one of the funniest movies of all time, and Sandy gives a tour-de-force performance! Alas, her career never quite took off, but - at last - she will always be remembered for her three first-rate pictures: "The King Of Comedy", "Dallas Doll", and "Without You I'm Nothing". She dons into different personas from New York socialite to Diana Ross to create a biting and hilarious critique of popular culture in America. Sexy and fierce, tender and sensual, philosophical and melancholic, she convinces the audience in every scene, and she actually IS "really pretty". Watch this one (if you're not from Iowa), you'll certainly enjoy it!!@@@1 +I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.@@@0 +One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...

My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.@@@1 +First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.

FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!@@@0 +This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!@@@1 +The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...

Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...

Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.

I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.

The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.@@@0 +I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!@@@1 +I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.

All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.@@@0 +I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.@@@1 +OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.

The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.

I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.

About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.@@@0 +Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis."@@@1 +The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.

First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.

For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!@@@0 +The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token.

Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.

At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?

The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 +This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.

Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.

As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.

1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.@@@0 +'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.@@@1 +My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.@@@0 +Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesques—at Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cutting—all very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?@@@1 +What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."

You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.

And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.

Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.

If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.@@@0 +Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.@@@1 +I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.

"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.

Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.

In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.

Avoid this steaming pile.@@@0 +I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.@@@1 +The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.@@@0 +Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else.@@@1 +Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)

[potential spoiler alert]

Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc.@@@0 +Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect.@@@1 +My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.@@@0 +This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.@@@1 +The good fellas at Webster's Dictionary define Logophobia as the ‘fear of words'. I may just be Logophobic. For no word combination scares me more than when at the beginning of a film, credits contain the words `Produced, Written and Directed by:', and are followed by a single individual's name. Think about it. There are carpenters, electricians and plumbers, but so few jack-of-all-trades. Even the most seasoned of directors like Speilberg and Scorsese rarely take such control of their films. But there I was, all nestled in my theatre seat, popcorn in hand and about to watch The Order when hurled at me like a Nolan Ryan fastball, were the words `Produced, Written and Directed by Brian Helgeland'. Whoa!

Being a film buff, I knew of Brian Helgeland. As a writer his filmograpghy over the past 10 years would be graphed like a dotcom company's stock price in 1998. There were as many theatrical unpleasantries (Assassins, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory) as there were critical and award winning successes (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River). They seemed to alternate – one good, one bad, so knowing that his last film, BloodWork was one of the most wasted efforts in Clint Eastwood's career, I took a breath and hoped for the best. In retrospect, I should not have exhaled.

The Order stars Heath Ledger (Helgeland's A Knights Tale), as Alex Bernier, a priest in an order known as the Carolingians, who is summoned to Rome when a fellow priest is killed under circumstances that the Arch Bishop deems ‘curious'. Meeting up with Father Thomas (also of the Order and played wonderfully by Still Standings' Mark Addy), they set out to piece together the riddle left behind in the wake of the priest's untimely death.

Complicating matters is a sub plot involving Mara Sinclair (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who has escaped from an institution that was the result of her attempts to kill Alex during an exorcism. Alex has feelings towards Mara and for some reason unbeknownst to the audience, they travel to Rome together.

Nary a good nights sleep goes by and Alex is confronted by William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who claims to be a centuries old Sin Eater. A Sin Eater, as we are told, are those that eat the sins of a dying individual when the church does not, thus allowing entrance into Heaven. William, as luck would have it, is tired of a life of healing and looks for Alex to take over his role and free him from his worldly duties. Alex is reluctant, but after the death of his new love Mara, Alex resorts to the ritual of the Sin Eater to save her and the transformation is complete. Alex then searches for answers to his many queries while Father Thomas unveils the Vatican plot behind the passing of authority to his fellow investigator.

The Order is not a terrible film, but it is terribly boring. There were ridiculous special effects and no connection with any of the characters. Even in the most dramatic scene - that of Alex walking in on the dying Mara - is pale and bland and leaves us with no emotional response towards the couple's plight. Everybody seems to talk so quietly and unemotionally that the film flat lines and smelling salts could have been administered to keep me from trying to grab a quick nap in the middle of the film.

So, Mr. Helgeland, I plead with you not to try this again. Share your vision with others and allow those more experienced to help direct you in directions that are not so narrow minded and self-serving. Until then, there is nothing emanating that shows you are capable of anything more than a failing grade. Two stars.

@@@0 +Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.@@@1 +Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.@@@0 +At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!@@@1 +In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.@@@0 +The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.@@@1 +The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.

They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.

Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.@@@0 +The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.@@@1 +::POTENTIAL SPOILERS::

Man, this movie was awful. A Catholic/superstitious/suspense thriller it goes over already well tread ground from previous movies.

The doubting priest. Sex and the priesthood. Politics and religion. Church hypocrisy. Conspiracy involving the church. The dawn of a new evil age. All kinds of dark magic voodoo battles between good and evil.

Pretty stupid and lame with a weak storyline to suffice. The story revolves around two concepts: Absolution, better known as the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick - the last rights a person can ask for to cleanse one's sins while on the brink of death; And Excommunication, the act of cutting a person off from the Church. Basically, an Excommunicated person can't receive Absolution. Thus comes in the Sin Eater, and I'll leave it at that. Throw in all the dopy things I already listed and you have "The Order".

I found the sex scene with the priest interlaced with shots of a picture of the Virgin Mary rather insulting to Catholics. It also ends with Heath Ledger saying (I paraphrase) "I am the redeemer and damner of sins, I live on without love blah blah blah" /cue him walking in dark alley with long trench coat alla "The Matrix".

I gave this movie a 1 for not only being crappy and unoriginal but also because it managed to insult an entire faith in the process. If you want to see something better I suggest "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.@@@0 +This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.@@@1 +Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.@@@0 +I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie.@@@1 +No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.

I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.

Not so Royal Flash.

I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).

What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).

None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.

Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.

If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.

A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.

My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.

If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.@@@0 +This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended.@@@1 +As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.@@@0 +Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.@@@1 +Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.@@@0 +Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.

Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.

While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.

This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.

A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions.@@@1 +This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.

Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.

This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.@@@0 +Not to be confused with the British black comedy of the same name that came out in 1994. But this Shallow Grave is a worthy addition to the 80's backwoods slasher.

The plot goes = 4 sorority girls from a convent are planning the spring break of a lifetime in Florida, but they're plans are put on hold when one of them witness a man murdering a local woman, and when he realizes that he was seen, well let's just say it becomes a deadly game of cat and mouse and things get even worse when he turns out to be the local sheriff.

Shallow Grave in my opinion is one of the more enjoyable slashers that came out in the 80's, especially the late 80's which was when the slashers kinda went downhill, this was one of the few that didn't and this movie should be more well known, it's a pity it isn't. this is one film that actually confounds stereotypes (just try guessing who the final girl is going to be - I got it totally wrong). The principle cast are all likable and it's one of those movies that you kinda hope they all get away, which of course they don't. This, coupled with the fluffiness of the film's first half-an-hour jars (in a good way) with some flashes of real nastiness (the second murder provides a real jolt) and some unexpected sleaziness (even though this isn't a high budget thriller I didn't expect the topless scene where a woman is strangled with her own bra (accompanied by a hysterical religious radio broadcast), in a film from this late in the 80's).

There are one or two bad things about this movie, well not bad just minor, like the sub plot with the two teenage boys which doesn't go anywhere and the ending which was stupid and plus the Deputy inability to follow logic. There aren't any sharp implements in SHALLOW GRAVE but, to my mind at least, it's a slasher flick through and through. The scenes where the girls are hunted through the woods by the malevolent Sheriff are tense and exciting.

All in all a very enjoyable and worthwhile slasher, with great performances from all four of the main girls and that psycho sheriff.@@@1 +I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.

The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be "THE 4TH MAN." The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.

The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.

Not that I have anything against "shocking" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.

So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.@@@0 +Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.@@@1 +I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.

This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.@@@0 +I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.@@@1 +There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.@@@0 +This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8@@@1 +The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.

SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.

With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.@@@0 +This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 +OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.

Good things about the movie: imagery

Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors@@@0 +This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.

I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.

A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.@@@1 +I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.@@@0 +I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.@@@1 +Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.@@@0 +The story is extremely unique.It's about these 2 pilots saving Earth from alien beings but they have to use a special speed that makes everything around them age rapidly.The whole series is about the pilots dealing with the loss of time,friends,and mentors.

The ending COULD have been fantastic.It started to end on a total down note and leave a real mark but instead ended on a super happy Disney note and annoyed me VERY bad.

The animation is decent for 89 but can't compare to nowadays.I have also heard many complain about the cheesiness of the nudity.I actually found it to be somewhat decent.The nudity for the most part was warranted except in episode 2 where there was an excess.

Overall it deserves a look but the ending keeps it from being a classic.@@@1 +Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.

This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.@@@0 +Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time.@@@1 +So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending.@@@0 +This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.@@@1 +This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.@@@0 +/* slight spoilers */

Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.

Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.

For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.

The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.

The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray

some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.

The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.

As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.

Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.

***/*****@@@1 +This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.@@@0 +Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over.@@@1 +Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas.@@@0 +Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.

Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.

Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.

All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you.@@@1 +For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.@@@0 +terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion@@@1 +Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.@@@0 +Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name.@@@1 +Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.@@@0 +Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.

There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.

And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that.@@@1 +I watched the movie, and was dismayed to say the least that the movie failed to communicate with me as an audience. The language would put to shame the street loafers.

The plot; a father forcing none of his son to marry, seems far-fetched.

The idea of a grandmother asking her grand kid to mess up with an enemy would only draw feeble minded's attention.

...and I was waiting the whole movie for a laugh, and laugh I did on my stupidity to waste 3 hours to convince myself that the movie is not even worth a first look.

Hope it saves YOUR time!@@@0 +Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.@@@1 +...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.

Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely "Hey, kids, let's make a movie!" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.

It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.

Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to "The Notorious Bettie Page." This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.

Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.@@@0 +What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.@@@1 +This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.

Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.@@@0 +Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest… some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles… some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise… some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.

Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word… but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics… it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them.@@@1 +I'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a "loving" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual "content" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or "point" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...

The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of "re-enactments" of some of Bettie's more "famous" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the "business" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...

DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...4/10@@@0 +Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch.@@@1 +This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its "world premiere." I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end.

Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say "wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie." this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory.

I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes "Dude, Where's My Car?" look like Citizen Kane.

My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the "world premiere" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.@@@0 +This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.

I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.

If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.@@@1 +The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.@@@0 +With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.

Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9.@@@1 +They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.@@@0 +Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10.@@@1 +The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.@@@0 +Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!@@@1 +In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.@@@0 +I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it@@@1 +I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.

Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.@@@0 +Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen.

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly.

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better.

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock!

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.@@@1 +IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!@@@0 +I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.

Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.@@@1 +As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.

It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.

This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.@@@0 +This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.

Make it so...@@@1 +This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.

This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.@@@0 +Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out!

I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!

Good work to all concerned!

(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)

It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?

Really glad I found it!

(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)

The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.

Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!

I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza

"Never give up, never surender!"

Viva les frontieres@@@1 +One of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.

First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like "The Good Earth", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. "Gold or Grain" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.@@@0 +For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.

Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.

This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.

By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.

I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.

The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.

If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.

If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.@@@1 +As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.

The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock?

Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.@@@0 +Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.@@@1 +I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.@@@0 +Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.@@@1 +By reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 10@@@0 +Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.@@@1 +Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.@@@0 +I really enjoyed this one, and although the ending made me angry, I still give it 10 out of 10.

Four college girls (Baltron, Kelly, Stahl and Cadby) are driving down to Florida, on their way they meet 2 guys (Turner, Davis), they really add nothing to the plot, but are at least somewhat likable. The girls agree to meet the guys in Florida for some fun, but they have car problems and never make it. One of the girls decides to go to a nearby gas station for help, the other three stay by the car.

Soon one of the girls has to use the bathroom, being in the middle of nowhere she has no choice but to go in the bushes. Soon she witnesses as a man (March) strangles a woman, in terror the girl flees the area, she doesn't get very far, but manages to get lost.

Her friends by the car go looking for her, they too go into the woods and run into the same man, one of them sees the dead woman, the man responds by shooting the girls head off, the other girl runs away, manages to make it back to the car where she is also killed.

Eventually the two remaining girls find each other and because they break into the gas station get arrested. This is when I started getting mad, these poor girls are afraid for their lives and the redneck cops don't believe them.

They are treated badly and one of them is left alone for the madman to kill her in the cell, the remaining friend manages to escape, but not without getting in dangerous situations.

This movie has nudity, good actresses, a shower scene imitating Psycho, graphic violence towards women and solid story. Some women will probably find it offensive and sensitive individuals will NOT like the ending, but over all, this is a great little unknown movie.@@@1 +I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision.@@@0 +Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though.@@@1 +Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though.@@@0 +I acquired this, one of my all-time favourite films on DVD recently and as usual, during viewing, the whole thing just blew me away.

I am a massive fan of Hazel O'Connor and the soundtrack to this film just has me in tears, especially the "Will You" track. It's a pure nostalgia trip for me back to my youth. This rates second best to Quadrophenia (which also starred Phil Daniels).

A great soundtrack and a great view of Britain in the Thatcherite years of the grim 80's in which I grew up. The ending is so sad, for hours after the end of the film I am like a blubbering baby.

I expect to wear out this DVD from repeated viewing, I can watch it over and over again and never be bored, simply for the soundtrack alone.

Hazel, sorry to hear about your dad darling. God Bless you all. xx@@@1 +If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.

After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.

Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.

Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.

Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.

Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.

I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.@@@0 +Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well.@@@1 +I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys@@@0 +I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry!@@@1 +In short, this movie is completely worthless.

The idea is to make movie from the point of view of what someone from the early 1900s might think of the future. An interesting idea, but the lack of compelling story or characters prevents us from ever suspending our disbelief, so the idea just flops.

Apparently the whole movie was done with actors in front of green screens and we are supposed to be impressed. But as a graphics person, the over softening was an obvious crutch for hiding the difficult sharp edge problem with green screening. The color is majorly washed out to no relevant effect except reduce the visual quality. And I don't understand why anyone would consider anything rendered in this movie to be in any way ground breaking. If anything, the ridiculous retrograde graphics have lowered the bar for really bad graphics -- they don't measure up even to the ancient Jurassic Park graphics. The models for the robots were so simple, plain and very uncompelling. There were a bunch of weirdo prehistoric-like animals on that island, but they are not explained in any way.

The story is horrible beyond belief. In fact I can't believe I didn't just walk out of this movie. The relationship between Polly and Joe is unmotivated, and throughout the movie is based on distrust and deception. Why is the Morris Paley character even there? We are not in any way convinced that Joe is heroic -- I mean he flies a plane, and saved one person (Polly) for personal reasons. Yeah there's a great hero for you. Dex has very little screen time, so why are we supposed to care about Joe wanting to save him? Who were the Nepalease that locked Joe and Polly in the mine vault, and why would they do it (remembering that the entire Totenkopf operation was robotic)?

Plot holes: (1) Why did Bai Ling's character (a major fall from her excellent character in "The Crow") halt the robots who had captured Joe? They were looking for the vials, and had not found them. (2) Why in the hell would Dex be captured but not killed (he doesn't have or know about the vials, and the bad guys didn't know that Polly had the vials and was connected to Joe and therefore to Dex)? (3) Polly indicates that "they" don't know anything about Totenkopf, yet she has some secret source about him that contains what appears to be a fairly complete FBI-style file on him. (4) The blank spot on the map as described by the Nepalese -- if they know all about this mysterious area, then why the hell is their map blank in that spot? (5) At one point, Polly and Joe have to give up their clothes (they are burned) -- Joe is given new clothes that were identical to his old clothes, yet Polly is forced to wear some very odd looking bulky dress, then in the same line of continuity suddenly Polly has her original clothes back.

*sigh*. How far off am I supposed to switch my brain to watch this crap?

We are supposed to be exhilarated by the over produced music, even when nothing interesting or remotely exhilarating is happening on screen.

And the acting? We're supposed to be impressed with a bunch of bad British accents? Which character isn't annoying? I think Ling Bai's dialogue was probably the best in the whole movie (she doesn't have a single line). The dialogue wasn't camp, and doesn't even rise to the level of cheese. Its just bad and annoying. These people aren't hero's or compelling; they are the kind of people you would try to ignore or disassociate with if you ever had the misfortune of meeting them in real life.

I can't believe that this movie gets an above average rating here on IMDb. IMHO it should be competing with "Batman Forever" in the bottom 100 of all time.@@@0 +One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy@@@1 +When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.

The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.

The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10@@@0 +I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.@@@1 +I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.@@@0 +Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!@@@1 +The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.@@@0 +I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

@@@1 +This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.@@@0 +Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter.@@@1 +A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.

The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.

But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.

The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.@@@0 +I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.

The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.

Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though.@@@1 +Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.@@@0 +I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?@@@1 +The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.@@@0 +Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money!@@@1 +I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film.@@@0 +As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.@@@1 +Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.

'Should have' being the key term here, of course.

Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.

Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.

The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.

Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.@@@0 +This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.@@@1 +"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.

One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.

I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.

The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't.

As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.

I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.@@@0 +This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.

If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.

There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.

I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.@@@1 +Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.@@@0 +It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time.

Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.

The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.

Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.

Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.

The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English.

The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.

Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date.

Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.@@@1 +"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.@@@0 +This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.@@@1 +In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.

The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.

The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.

Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.@@@0 +Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.@@@1 +What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!@@@0 +Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.@@@1 +This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.

The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...

Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...

THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...@@@0 +Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!@@@1 +I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.

The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.@@@0 +Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.@@@1 +I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.@@@0 +Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema.@@@1 +I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.@@@0 +Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!!@@@1 +This movie should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?

This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.

it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!

ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!

@@@0 +This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!@@@1 +To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.

The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...

*My rate: 4/10@@@0 +THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.

This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...

THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10@@@1 +Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.@@@0 +This is an excellent show! I had a US history teacher in high school that was much like this. There are many "facts" in history that are not quite true and Mr Wuhl points them out very well, in a way that is unforgettable.

Mr Wuhl is teaching a class of film students but history students and even the general public will appreciate the witty way that he uncovers some very well known fallacies in the history of the world and strive to impress them upon that brains of his students. Use of live actors performing "skits" is also very entertaining.

I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in having the history they learned as a child turned upside down.@@@1 +For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.@@@0 +this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following@@@1 +I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".

Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.

The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.

I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.

They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.

A real mess of a film from start to finish.@@@0 +I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.@@@1 +There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.

The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.

Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.

There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.

My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.

Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.@@@0 +I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.@@@1 +Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...@@@0 +Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.@@@1 +Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."

The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"

Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."

The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"

Please.@@@0 +Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.@@@1 +I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.@@@0 +Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.@@@1 +Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.

I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.@@@0 +My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.@@@1 +I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.@@@0 +Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.@@@1 +I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.

And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.

Avoid this film like the plague.@@@0 +Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.@@@1 +We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script@@@0 +108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.

John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.

DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.

KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risqué jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.

Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934).@@@1 +...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.

@@@0 +A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.

Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.

Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't dead—only wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).

The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.

Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing props—dodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swings—but these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.@@@1 +How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!@@@0 +One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).

Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.

Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.

I really like this film a great deal.

If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.

You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures.@@@1 +Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...

First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!

I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!

Are you getting the picture?@@@0 +I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.@@@1 +This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.@@@0 +Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.

I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:

Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.

Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.

Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful.

Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous.

Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.

Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)

Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!

Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.

So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code.

The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.

Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex.@@@1 +I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.

I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.

I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film.@@@0 +Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!@@@1 +There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!@@@0 +The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.@@@1 +this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....@@@0 +In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.@@@1 +Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!@@@0 +I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.

One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.

The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.

Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.

The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.

What direction! What camera! What storytelling!@@@1 +Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.@@@0 +A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout)@@@1 +This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!@@@0 +This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.@@@1 +I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski.

As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.

Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....

Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........@@@0 +This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.@@@1 +In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade – Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes – but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.

When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd.@@@0 +"Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.@@@1 +I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.@@@0 +When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate!@@@1 +I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.

I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.

The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.@@@0 +Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their "boys." People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.@@@1 +I read James Hawes book. It was pretty neat, not great, but entertaining enough. Without having read the book I wouldn't have had the slightest idea what was going on, and it was still a stretch with that knowledge.

Literally every element of this film is abysmal in ways I do not have the capacity to describe. Half digested fish could have made a better film with matchsticks and dayglo lipstick.

Never before or since as a film made me feel so angry. The Mattress sequels came closest, but even they never reached such depths of utterly putrid nauseating appallingness that this bilge did.

Since wasting 90 minutes of my life witnessing this plague on human kind I am now unable to even look at any book by James Hawes without feeling angry. That is the depth of hatred I have for this piece of sh*t. No, that's unfair. Let me apologise to all fecal matter for comparing you to the otherworldly evil that is Rancid Aluminium.

Plain and simply a cancer on the world of cinema.@@@0 +I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.

After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.

One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.

The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.

It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie.@@@1 +Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.

@@@0 +As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic.@@@1 +This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated

To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained

Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely@@@0 +Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.

Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.

Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.

There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.

Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.@@@1 +In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10@@@0 +There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended.@@@1 +Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.

Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.@@@0 +Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.

JLH@@@1 +This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.

In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and "art" film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.

If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.@@@0 +The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!

The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.

MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!

The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).

Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?

While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.

TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!@@@1 +By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.@@@0 +Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings.

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.@@@1 +Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it.

To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...

Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.@@@0 +I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com@@@1 +Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.

The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.

After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.

At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.

Made on a budget of 75 cents.@@@0 +William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.@@@1 +This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.

As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.

Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.

But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians.

So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.@@@0 +This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do.@@@1 +OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.@@@0 +This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.@@@1 +I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.

Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.

Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given:

If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.

Approach wild animals without any fear.

You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.

and my favorite, the final message left in the film:

It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.@@@0 +I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.

Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun.

In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka@@@1 +This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl – Helen Selleck – is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.@@@0 +This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.

The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.

Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.

The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).

So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.@@@1 +Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.

***MAJOR SPOILER***

The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.

The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.@@@0 +The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.

Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.

Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.

This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.@@@1 +This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.@@@0 +Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...

Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic.@@@1 +The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.

While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".

It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.@@@0 +With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.

The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.

No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.

Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.

The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.

The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.

This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.

The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.

Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.

Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film.@@@1 +I've seen this film because I had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). I couldn't stop thinking "who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to Cannes Festival!" It wasn't only boring, the actors were awful as well. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.@@@0 +EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.

A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating).@@@1 +This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity@@@0 +Ossessione

Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable.@@@1 +1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiancé and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....@@@0 +Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.

The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.

In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.

There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.

All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.@@@1 +Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!@@@0 +Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.

The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.

Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.

Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.

8/10@@@1 +Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.

This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.@@@0 +Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.@@@1 +A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.

Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.

How much longer can this madness continue?@@@0 +I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.@@@1 +William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).

Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide...

**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage@@@0 +When people nowadays hear of a 1940s drama, they usually appear to create a distance of irony claiming that it's another tearjerker with great stars in the lead of tragic, melancholic roles. This opinion, however, does not resemble Neorealist movies, in particular this one directed by Count Luchino Visconti. OSSESSIONE as his debut once censored and once cherished as nearly a realistic masterpiece is still loved by some people and strongly criticized by others. The contradictory opinions about the film that have appeared in these 65 years seem to have been caused by the content of the movie itself, exceptionally controversial for modern times as well as the past. At the same time, while being based on the novel by James M. Cain, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, it is one of the most genuine screen adaptations where director remains his own style, view, his own art. I have seen the film twice and the second viewing led me to very detailed analysis part of which I'd like to entail below.

First, Visconti's movie seems to touch all psychology and actions that people may do in life, in particular those absorbed by desire. These people make such tragic decisions in spite of terrible consequences they are bound to face. Gino (Massimo Girotti) a traveler with "bear like shoulders" turns up at the crossroad of a motorway near Ferrara and enters the tavern. Although many people go there to have a meal, Gino occurs to get something more - much more: the indefatigable desire of beautiful Giovanna (Clara Calamai) a woman already married to an elderly man who runs the bar, Mr Giuseppe Bragana (Juan De Landa). Her body and her song possess his mind totally and from the moment of their first love, the couple plan to get rid of the old obstacle and build up a new life together... However, are people bound to wrong deeds in face of desire? Can one build love upon murder? What is love and what is loyalty? Does desire lead to a dangerous addiction or even obsession? Such questions intensely arise while watching the movie, when, to the core, the viewer is supplied with an insight into characters. "We have to love each other affectionately" answers Giovanna seemingly giving a cure to all crying conscience but may desirous love justify and cure everything? "Isn't it what we both wanted" says one of the couple... it occurs that it's not. Therefore, the content of the film appears to be very dangerous if not analyzed with intellect and heart. Yet, it constantly remains thought provoking.

Second, OSSESSIONE has a very strong point that talks to modern viewers: brilliant moments and marvelous cinematography, which go in pair with memorable sequences and visual power. These make a modern viewer realize that a film made almost 70 years ago is absolutely entertaining to watch. They range from tasteful erotic images to purely technical shots. Who can possibly skip that moment in Ferrara where Gino meets a beautiful girl, a sort of "Ragazza Perfetta" (perfect girl), a dancer Anita and buys her ice cream. His desires show him totally different direction... Do viewers remain indifferent at Gino-Giovanna's first meeting? The first focus of camera is on Giovanna's legs seemingly representing carnal desire over love that Gino experiences. A marvel of shot is Gino and Giovanna leaving the investigation room and the closeup of their shadows that directs our attention towards their suspicious look.

Third, OSSESSIONE can boast outstanding performances both from the leading pair as well as the supporting cast. Massimo Girotti once said in an interview that working in this movie had been one of the most difficult jobs he had ever done; yet, consequently, what comes out is a flawless acting. He portrays a bisexual man torn within desires who commits a crime but cannot stand any of the objects that remind him of his victim, which represents conscience. His bisexuality is indicated through the character of Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo) whom he meets in very surprising circumstances in the train for Ancona. Clara Calamai, who was cast in the role after eminent Anna Magnani had refused, fits very well to the role and we may claim that there is a true chemistry between the couple. They are both very convincing. Besides, I liked Juan De Langa in the role of Bragana: he portrays an old husband not affectionate to his wife and still crazy about high art. In some of his most witty moments, he asks his wife to wash his back or walks in the empty streets singing his favorite opera songs after sort of karaoke performance.

In sum, we, as modern viewers who are capable of critical view, have to look at this film very objectively. It is art for sure thanks to the aspects aforementioned, it is a powerful story as well thanks to the controversy it carries; yet, is it educational? Visconti was not Fellini who said that he did not carry any message for humanity. In such case, his films would only entertain (which is, of course, not entirely Fellini's style, too). Visconti always had something to convey. What did he want to say here? Is the film against bad marriage? Or is it against wrong actions of people absorbed by desire? The final shocking moments say for themselves. Though you don't have to agree with the vision, OSSESSIONE is really a wonderfully realistic film, one of Visconti's best 8/10@@@1 +This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.@@@0 +A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.

@@@1 +Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).

Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).@@@0 +To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.@@@1 +The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene.@@@0 +TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!@@@1 +

Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).@@@0 +A masterful treatment of James Caine's "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French "Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended.@@@1 +Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.@@@0 +'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.

P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!!@@@1 +Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.

Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.

If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 +Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).

Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes.

It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.@@@1 +First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.@@@0 +fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again.@@@1 +I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!@@@0 +Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come.@@@1 +This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.@@@0 +Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.@@@1 +and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).

maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.

the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!

rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .

I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.

points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!@@@0 +Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.

The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.

I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!@@@1 +This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!

The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.

In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.

I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".

I rated this movie 1/10.@@@0 +Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.

The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.

What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.

Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.

The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.

"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.@@@1 +Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.@@@0 +(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.@@@1 +Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:

In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.

The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.

There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.@@@0 +Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.@@@1 +This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point.@@@0 +This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.@@@1 +Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...@@@0 +Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.

It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help.

"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.

All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko".

While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.

"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.@@@1 +Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 +This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh.@@@1 +A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.@@@0 +Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific@@@1 +someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.

please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.@@@0 +When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.

But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.

I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased.@@@1 +You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.

The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.

Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.

Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.

Just bad.@@@0 +This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.

Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.

Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON!@@@1 +There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.

It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.

It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.

If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.

It's still drivel, though.@@@0 +Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).

Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.

The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words".

You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.

The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.@@@1 +This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.@@@0 +I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.

I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.

I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)

I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.

Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it)@@@1 +I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.@@@0 +When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.@@@1 +In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgs—robots with human features—that have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.

Only one force can stop Jōb's death march—the Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.

In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.

Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).@@@0 +I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.

I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!

If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.@@@1 +This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)@@@0 +this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!

@@@1 +Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.@@@0 +This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.@@@1 +Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.@@@0 +The combination of the superb black and white photography and the 'Eugene Onegin with a twist' plot made this a real knock out for me. The atmosphere created by the mostly very dark shots contrasted with occasional very bright overexposed white was gripping. There was a superb moment where where transparencies - apparently conventional holiday snaps but where the faces of the actors revealed character and situation subtly but instantly - were shown accompanied by Lensky's heart-wrenching aria from the Tschaikowsky opera Eugene Onegin.

For me the mark of a good film is that it should take advantage of the opportunities presented by that medium, which means that often the story is less important than imagery and atmosphere - Last Year in Marienbad is a good example of such a film. Krisana is in the same mould.@@@1 +Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.@@@0 +Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!!@@@1 +The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.

The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.@@@0 +This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.

Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.

The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.

Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending.@@@1 +"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."@@@0 +I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.

"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.

Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.

The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.

"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.@@@1 +With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.@@@0 +A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.@@@1 +As big as a Texas prairie and equally as boring. Even Liz Taylor, James Dean, Chill Wills, and Dennis Hopper can't float this overbloated boat. Taylor actually LOOKS bad--wrong wardrobe, wrong hair, and wrong makeup--a unique accomplishment in her remarkable career. Hopper gives the only believable performance, and Dean in the climactic scene displays remarkable talent as something we usually don't remember him for--a comic actor. Rock Hudson is his usual prototype of Barbie Doll Ken and makes one wonder what a, say, Redford could have done with the male lead. There is no discernible plot that provides any tension until the final twenty minutes, just a pastiche of milestones that have little relationship to each other. Except for Hopper, there is no character development, only a collection of cardboard cutouts that pop up periodically for no discernible reason like random targets in a shooting gallery. To its credit, the film does tackle racism and sexism at a time when they were taboo subjects, and it does have SIZE, making it an excellent choice for ridding yourself of unwelcome house guests. Those with the DVD version can spare themselves some of the tedium by starting with the second disk. You won't be missing anything of interest.@@@0 +Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.@@@1 +This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography@@@0 +I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful!@@@1 +Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).

This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.

Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!

This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).@@@0 +Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.@@@1 +I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.@@@0 +Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.

The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichéd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.

Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.

The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts.@@@1 +An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.

Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.

The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.

Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.

I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.

The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.@@@0 +I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!@@@1 +I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what … but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.

For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.

Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.

There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.

Grade: ** out of *****@@@0 +I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you.

It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.

And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.

If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.@@@1 +Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.

Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.

As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.

Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.

Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.@@@0 +Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.

Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.@@@1 +There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 +This is a delightful movie that is so over-the-top that my wife, daughter, and I found it irresistible. The plot is just crazy but "rings true" to the world of soap operas in all its outrageous improbabilities and impossibilities.

I particularly enjoyed Kevin Kline's and Sally Field's performances. I don't anyone better than Kline at playing THICKheaded. Field's character's truly desperate need for attention and affirmation -- and her almost bipolar swings in mood -- played nicely against the background of Field's famous (infamous?) "You like me!" Oscar exclamation. People who can take themselves with such a large grain of salt are all too rare in this world.

I think this is the only movie where I didn't find myself impatient with Whoopi Goldberg characterization; I thought she was "spot on" in every note she struck. Robert Downey Jr., Teri Hatcher, Cathy Moriarty, and Elizabeth Shue were also first-rate as well. Just a great movie if you're in the mood to go along for the ride and LAUGH!@@@1 +I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.@@@0 +Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco – of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly.

A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant – a zombie in his closet.

Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him – and his family – he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.

Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan – who wrote and directed – blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality – it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).

The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless.

Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.

However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal.@@@1 +This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.@@@0 +This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA.@@@1 +In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski:

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children."

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.@@@0 +I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.

This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.

I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.@@@1 +I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.

I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.

What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.@@@0 +I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!@@@1 +1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.@@@0 +Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.

Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.

I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm@@@1 +I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox@@@0 +This is why I still have nightmares.

This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.

A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).

The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.

Not suitable for children.@@@1 +I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?@@@0 +I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.@@@1 +Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.@@@0 +i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year......@@@1 +Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.

It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.

For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.

The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).

Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.

These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.

The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.

It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"

Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.

It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.

Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.

These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.

Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.@@@0 +I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path.@@@1 +Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.

One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.

Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.

Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.

Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.

By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.

I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.

Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.

I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.

Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.@@@0 +This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.@@@1 +Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.@@@0 +The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.

It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.

It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.

You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.

If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.@@@1 +As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.

I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money.

Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community.

This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible.

It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.

The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.

I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_0.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_0.txt index a9ecc0d..1e555f6 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_0.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_0.txt @@ -298,203 +298,3 @@ Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great epis Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.

The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.

The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.

Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.

Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.@@@0 Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...

This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.

Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...

Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.

Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.@@@1 Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.@@@0 -What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.

Spoilers here:

Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.

End of Spoiler.

As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.@@@1 -I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.@@@0 -This is one of the best episode from the second season of MOH, I think Mick Garris has a problem with women... He kill'em all, they are often the victims (Screwfly solution, Pro-life, Valerie on the stairs, I don't remember the Argento's episode in season 1, etc., obviously Imprint). I think he enjoys to watch women been burn, torture, mutilated and I don't know. Never least "Right to die" is one of the best, with good turns and graphic scenes and suspense (specially with the photos from the cell scene, wonderful). The acting is like the entire series, regular I could be worst like "Pro-life" or "We scream for Ice cream". Also I think the plot it could be made for a movie and not just for an episode. The ideology of the series is horrible, killing and terminating women, mutilating animals and on and on... the first season it was better than the second one with episodes like "Cigarrette burns" (The best of all), "Homecoming" (The most funny), "Imprint" (really shocking).@@@1 -Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!@@@0 -I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.

The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.@@@1 -First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers.

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two.

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...@@@0 -Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.@@@1 -Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.@@@0 -A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.

This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.

The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".

Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.

While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3!@@@1 -You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)@@@0 -Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients.@@@1 -If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.

The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.

By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.@@@0 -Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.

Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.

Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.)

But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.

And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)

Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply.@@@1 -This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.@@@0 -I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.

The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.

I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.

Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future.@@@1 -Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).@@@0 -Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.@@@1 -Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?@@@0 -This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure.@@@1 -FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****@@@0 -But the fun is in the journey.

I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.

The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.

Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry...@@@1 -As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.@@@0 -This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.@@@1 -Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.@@@0 -As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.@@@1 -'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10@@@0 -Does anyone know the exact quote about "time and love" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul!

I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship.

Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years.

He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.

This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.

I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.

Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE.

Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks!@@@1 -I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????@@@0 -I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.

But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.

Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders."

The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).

Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.

I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.@@@1 -Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.

Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **@@@0 -A sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths as they prepare for their weddings. The ex-cop writer and the public school teacher fall for each other in this great new york setting, even though they are marrying other people. Maybe a little trite in that the "partners" are both type A personalities, while our protagonists are much more relaxed. Not anything heavy, but it made me smile. And hey for the guys - sell the Natasha Henstridge angle, and the gals - sell them the sappy romance, everyone wins!@@@1 -I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .@@@0 -It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.@@@1 -Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.

LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.

Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.

Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".

Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.@@@0 -Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.

Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.

It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.

I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.@@@1 -Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.@@@0 -A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch.@@@1 -It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.@@@0 -I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.

Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.

Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.

Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.

God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.

This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too.@@@1 -Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.@@@0 -I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw "You've got mail" I thought "It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.

It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend!@@@1 -SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).@@@0 -This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.@@@1 -how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.

rating:0.3@@@0 -I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.

There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...

Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.

(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)@@@1 -I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.

OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.

As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.

I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.@@@0 -This great movie has failed to register a higher rating than 5!Why not!It is a great portrayal of the life of Christ without the ruthless sensationalism of The Passion of The Christ.Johnny Cash did great things for God which amazingly are shunned and neglected in areas where they should matter most,like our churches.The film itself took less than a month to film as Johnny felt the strong presence of God guiding him through it.Great credit to everyone involved in this overwhelmingly sincere movie which will always be cherished by its fans.At least the Billy Graham crusade rated it highly enough to use it as a prime source of education for new Christians.Thanks Fox for producing it.As Walk the Line proved that it was freakish that this man survived yet alone produced such an underrated masterpiece.Movies are not canonized through popular vote as this production proves! In summary I believe that this film is one of the worlds great documentaries as it is forthright, honestly portrayed and a great witness to the Christian faith!@@@1 -Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.@@@0 -This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.@@@1 -Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.@@@0 -Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.

But....

1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.

I'd love to buy the CD.

Tom Paine Texas, USA@@@1 -i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.

that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.

nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.

i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.

however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.

great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.

whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.@@@0 -There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that

1/Jesus was blond,

2/the last supper was a huge meal,

3/ he liked playing with the children,

4/His death was for all people and for all time.

The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons.@@@1 -More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.

It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.

"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.

A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy.

But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.

Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!

Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.

The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.@@@0 -I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool.@@@1 -Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.

I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.@@@0 -I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well.

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out.@@@1 -A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.@@@0 -I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting.

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this.

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence.@@@1 -I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.@@@0 -Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs.@@@1 -This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.

Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.

Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.

Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.@@@0 -This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.

I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.

Jason Bigg's character was the best though.

Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.

This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.

This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.

Good job in writing.@@@1 -When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.@@@0 -This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.@@@1 -I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.@@@0 -Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.@@@1 -San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better!

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.@@@0 -I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").

The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.

In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.@@@1 -If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.@@@0 -i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.

overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.

overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.@@@1 -This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.@@@0 -Look it's Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd in a movie about a dead girlfriend haunting the new girlfriend. It's Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives and the guy who wore "sex Panther cologne" in Anchorman. If you are expecting a Golden Globe nominated movie then you need to rethink how you look at movies. However, if you are willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and want to watch a funny movie then you've come to the right place. The characters are all funny. They work together very well. The real match up is Paul Rudd and Lake Bell. He's as funny as he was on Friends and she was funny and good looking all at the same time. I went with my wife, she enjoyed it and so did I.@@@1 -Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.@@@0 -Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.@@@1 -It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)@@@0 -I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation@@@1 -The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4.

I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.@@@0 -In complete contrast to the opinions of the other review, this film actually was surprisingly good! I reluctantly went to see it and expected to be bored by clichés, obvious jokes and overacting, all of which the trailer had promised.

However, after 5 minutes in I found myself genuinely laughing and enjoying the refreshing acting. With only one 'toilet humour' gag, Over Her Dead Body manages to actually come up with realistically funny scenarios and, without spoiling anything too much, some of the moments involving animals are hilarious.

The staple ingredients of a good film are all there; script, director and actors and compared some other recent attempts at romantic comedy, this film stands tall.

Sure, you aren't going to learn anything or have a spiritual awakening, but if you go with an open mind you will more than likely have a good time!@@@1 -The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.@@@0 -Once when I was in college and we had an international fair, the Russian section had a Soviet-era poster saying "Ne boltay!", meaning "Don't gossip!". I "translated" it for the "generation" of TV watchers as "Don't be Gladys Kravitz!" (in reference to the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched").

However, when you see the result of gossip in the Pvt. Snafu short "Rumors", you see that it's not quite a laughing matter. In this case, the perpetually witless soldier overhears something about bombing and immediately assumes that the Axis Powers have attacked the United States. So, he tells it to someone, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and it continues. As in "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming", the story gets blown more and more out of proportion each time, so that when it gets back to Snafu...well, you know what I mean! Yes, it's mostly WWII propaganda - complete with a derogatory term for the Japanese - but I have to say that the Pvt. Snafu shorts were actually quite funny. Of course, since they had Dr. Seuss writing and Mel Blanc providing the voices, it's no surprise that these came out rather cool. Worth seeing.@@@1 -Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".@@@0 -Friz Freleng's 'Rumours' is an excellent Private Snafu cartoon that warns against spreading panic-inducing rumours during wartime. Produced, as were all the Snafu shorts, to be shown to military audiences as entertaining instructional films, 'Rumours' is extremely imaginative and crams tons of ideas into its very brief lifespan. When Snafu starts a rumour about a bombing, it escalates into an eventual rumour that America has lost the war. This is illustrated brilliantly by way of a long, rubbery piece of baloney and several strange, fictional creatures who come back to haunt Snafu with ever more terrible news about his country's military. 'Rumours' is inventive, fast paced and funny, all of which help to overshadow the rather laboured, "don't badmouth the military" message. It stands up as one of the best of the Private Snafu shorts.@@@1 -When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.

I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.@@@0 -RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.

As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.

This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.@@@1 -No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.@@@0 -This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time@@@1 -I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.

I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation.

None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.@@@0 -Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 -Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.

Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.

Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?

Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period."

Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.

Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.

Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.

In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.

Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.@@@0 -Tim Krabbe is the praised author of 'Het Gouden Ei', a novel that was put on the screen twice ('Spoorloos' and 'The Vanishing'). One of the Dutch writer's more recent works is 'De Grot', a psychological thriller about two totally different men, Egon and Axel, who meet at a youth camp and, surprising enough, become friends for dear life. Egon is a quiet, somewhat dull person, who spends his time studying and writing geography books. Axel, on the other hand, is a charismatic 'party-animal', a heavy drinking criminal whose everyday's concern is to get a woman into his bedroom. From the moment they meet, Axel has a strong influence on Egon, while the latter envies him because he has a good life without really doing anything (such as reading thick books like Egon); ultimately, Egon is even dragged by Egon into illegal practices himself, which leads to a fatal drug transport in a distant Asian country.

After having read the book last year, I was surprised the critics were quite positive about it. In my opinion, the book suffers especially from the complex structure. While Krabbe presents the story as an absorbing portrait of an uncommon relationship between two people, the plot becomes more of a puzzle: the many episodes are not presented chronologically, so that two successive scenes are seldom in the same episode. Because of this, the story feels surprisingly remote: you often need to know a character's background to really care for him or her. Another complaint was the fact that the main characters, Egon and Axel, are a little stereotypical. Egon IS 'the' dull intellectual, while Axel IS his exact opposite. In real life, such one-dimensional people rarely exist; in books and films, they always seem to be there, taking away a lot of credibility.

Despite all this, the film was a pleasant surprise, being much better than the book. The adaptation excels in its beautiful cinematography, humour and acting: Fedja van Huet (Egon) is one of the few Dutch actors who can make you forget he IS acting (which is, in my opinion, the highest an actor can achieve). The drawbacks of the film, however, are the same as the book's: mainly because the characters are one-dimensional, they are so predictable that it becomes annoying. Guess who wrote the script? Indeed, Krabbe himself. It is obvious that this talented director (that's what the movie makes clear anyway) is hampered by a deficient screenplay. Perhaps Koolhoven should just have chosen a better book.

7/10@@@1 -MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½*

Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence)

By Blake French:

Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said.

This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny.

How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?

The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.

"Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money.

So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.

@@@0 -'De Grot' is a terrific Dutch thriller, based on the book written by Tim Krabbé. Another of his books, 'Het Gouden Ei' was made into the great Dutch mystery thriller called 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing') in 1988. This one is not as good as that thriller (although much better than the American remake also called 'The Vanishing') but there are times it comes close.

Especially the opening moments are terrific. We see a man, later we learn his name is Egon Wagter (Fedja van Huêt), coming from a plane in Thailand. When he picks up his bags it is pretty clear that he is smuggling something across the border. These scenes are perfectly directed, photographed and acted. A kind of suspense is created that you would normally not have in an opening scene like this. Later we see how Egon makes his deal in Thailand with a woman, both stating that they have never done anything like this.

From this point the movie is constantly flashback and flash-forward. We see how Egon, still as a child (here played by Erik van der Horst), befriends a guy named Axel (as a kid played by Benja Bruijning). We learn how they grew up as friends, sort of, and how Axel (as an adult played by Marcel Hensema) became a criminal. Egon in the meanwhile goes to college and settles with a woman. Around this time he sometimes meets Axel but does not really want anything to do with him.

The movie is chronological in a way. It shows Egon and Axel as kids, than as students, young adults, and in their mid-thirties. But from time to time, like I said, the movie goes back to when they were kids and jumps forward again. Every time we see them as kids it explains something that happens when they are adults.

Minor spoilers herein.

The title means 'The Cave', and it is the cave that gives the movie its happy ending, although it is in fact not that happy. Like the beginning, the ending is terrific. The middle part of the movie is entertaining and in a way it distracts our attention of the first scenes, only to come back at that point in the end. It is the editing that gives the movie its happy ending, although we can say the dramatic ending is happy in a way as well.@@@1 -This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!@@@0 -Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 -How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.@@@0 -De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation).@@@1 -This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 -I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.

But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.

Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.

And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.@@@1 -Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.@@@0 -Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like "Laggan" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. "Devdas", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit "Bollywood" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words "defending his Village" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for "Bollywood". All said and done this is one good Movie.@@@1 -This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 -I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as "Love's a bitch!") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it.@@@1 -This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player "downtown" to hit a home run, clearly "downtown" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.@@@0 -good movie, good music, good background and an acceptable plot. but the main point again as his movies tend to be, the man is the best actor in idia and can turn dust into gold. nana patekar. this may be his second best performance after parinda( others may disagree). although other movies are not far behind. one man that will never ever disappoint you.

good movie although i think shahrukh was a luxury this movie could have done without. you can see in his movies, others try very hard to reach his heights and act out of their skins. but this man is really something elase.

the movie is cool, the music and direction is excellent plot a bit thin but the screen play and dialog again very good. a must watch.@@@1 -Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.

@@@0 -This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up!@@@1 -This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.

The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!@@@0 -A strong woman oriented subject after long, director Krishna Vamsi's Shakti- The Power, the Desi version of the Hollywood hit Not Without My Daughter is actress Sridevi's first home-production. A story about a woman's fight against harsh injustice.

The story of the film revolves around Nandini (Karisma Kapoor) who lives in Canada with her two uncles (Tiku Talsania, Jaspal Bhatti). There she meets Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), falls in love with him and they soon marry. Their family is complete when Nandini has a boy, Raja (Master Jai Gidwani). But their happiness is short lived, as the news of Shekhar's ailing mother (Deepti Naval)makes them leave their perfect life in Canada and come to India. And that's when the problems start. From the moment they reach

India, both are shocked to see the pollution and the vast throngs of people everywhere. They take a crowded train to reach Shekhar's village and when they finally reach the station, they have to catch a long bus drive to his village. The filthy sweaty bus combined with the uncertain terrain makes it a never-ending drive. And unfortunately for them, a frenzied mob that beat Shekhar out of shape for no fault of his attacks their bus. Fortunately, they get shot dead just in time before they can further harm him. After that, they drive to the handing Havel where Shekhar''s father, Narsimha (Nana Patekar) lives with his wife (Deepti Naval). Nandani realized that her father-in-law is in command as soon as she enters the place, but her only solace is her mother-in-law's warm welcome.

Living there, Nandini learns of her father-in-laws tyrannical behavior and realizes that ruthless killing is a way of life for him. The day she sees her father-in-law teach her son to throw a bomb, she loses it and lashes out against him, insisting to Shekhar that they move back to Canada. But terror strikes again when Shekhar is murdered one day, leaving a broken down Nandini alone with her son in this strange land where she is harrowed by a cruel father-in-law. Her fight against this man to save her son is what makes up the climax of this emotional heart-wrenching film.

What sets apart Shakti from most films being made off late is also the rural setting of the movie. The only drawback is Ismail Darbar''s music, which fails to rise above the script. The only saving grace is the sexy item number Ishq Kameena, which has been composed by Anu Malik. Another pat for the director comes because he has extracted some splendid performances from his cast. Karisma Kapoor is the life of the film and has given a moving performance as a helpless mother. She is sure to win awards for this heated portrayal. Second is actor Nana Patekar who is back with a bang with this film. His uncouth mannerisms suit him to the hilt and he's shown his versatility once again with this role. Sanjay Kapoor is the surprise packet of the film with a sincere and effective portrayal that stands up against both the other actors. Deepti Naval too is in top form and her Pr-climax showdown with Nana is praiseworthy. Shahrukh's cameo provides the lighter moments and surely he's been pulled in to get the required star value. Though his role was not really required, he's done it well. Overall, Shakti is a far superior film than most churned out these days and the Pr-release hype is sure to get it a good opening. Shakti is sure to get the critics and audience thumps up. So what if the film needs to be desperately trimmed by at least 2 reels to better the impact. Shakti still has the power to go on without a hitch!@@@1 -For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.@@@0 -Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!@@@1 -Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.@@@0 -Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done.@@@1 -Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?@@@0 -Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of "not without my Daughter"(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most "inspired" movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch.@@@1 -Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.@@@0 -The beauty of this film is evidenced in the great portrayal of the power of a mother's love, the exceptional performances, the steady execution and the quite innovative script. The film tells the story of an Indian woman, Nandini, who lives in Canada with her husband Shekhar and little kid Raja. All of a sudden her husband informs her that his family in India (of whom she had not even known) is in troubles and the couple rush to India. When they get into the village, Nanadini is shocked and terrified to witness a very wild rural culture; Shekhar's family, ruled by his cruel, highly cynical and merciless father Narasimha, lives a poor and highly violent lifestyle which is full of murder and terror and where women are subservient and helpless. Nandini starts nagging Shekhar to return home, but he is soon killed by his father's enemies. When she wants to leave, Narasimha refuses to let her take Raja back to India. Here starts the intense struggle which can be called "Nandini vs. Narasimha".

India is not presented in a particularly positive light in this film, but it only shows a very tiny minority of its rural areas, so it may be even correct. The portrayal is in my view fair and not one-sided because the positive side is also presented to an extent. Such a horrifying sight could be shown in a film about any country in the world. The locations are amazing, the music is wonderful, and Krishna Vamshi's direction is aided by very effective cinematography and good editing. One thing that must be noted is the very ear-pleasing background score by Ismail Darbar, it is beautiful. The characters are very well defined though we do get to see both their bright and dark sides in different portions of the film. Portrayed realistically throughout, the film flows well and is an interesting and fairly entertaining watch. Its dialogues are superb and intelligently written, and although the shocking proceedings can be very disturbing at some points, a great deal of positive moments manage to relieve the tension.

The film's biggest strength is the performances. Karisma Kapoor is breathtaking and very believable as Nandini. Her ability to strike a balance between vulnerability and unrestrained emotion is simply incredible. She displays so much intensity, impulsiveness, anguish and determination as the mother who wants to get her son back that this little kid seems to be her own son. Her outbreaks while facing off Nana Patekar which are like volcanic eruptions show us how the simplest of women can become a tigress when it comes to her child. After Fiza, this is her most powerful performance. One of the greatest actors Indian cinema has seen, Nana Patekar is indescribable as Narasimha. He manages to be hateful as Narasimha yet admirable as the actor who plays him. Patekar displays cruelty, wittiness and even humanity with total conviction. He is outstanding. Another great performance comes unsurprisingly from India's most underrated actress, Deepti Naval, who sensitises her character to perfection. Sanjay Kapoor is just adequate and Shahrukh Khan provides great comic relief. Anyway, do watch Shakti - it could have been better, but it is definitely a must-watch.@@@1 -This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.@@@0 -If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.

I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role.

One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.@@@1 -I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.

Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.@@@0 -The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.@@@1 -There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.

The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).

When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.@@@0 -Uneven Bollywood drama. Karisma Kapoor is excellent as an Indian woman in Canada who marries a friend (Sanjay Kapoor), has a child, and then visits his family in India only to find they are terrorist warlords. Drama and tragedy ensue, and the film becomes a kind of NOT WITHOUT MY BABY styled thriller. Film is compelling, its few song/dance numbers are uninteresting and needless, the gaity of Bollywood song and dance is really out of character for the intensity of this film's drama, at least once we've left the comforting confines of their Canadian love nest – although one number involving a cameo by the stunning Aishwarya Rai is enjoyably provocative, if ultimately misplaced as well. Likewise, the inclusion of Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky drifter who helps Kapoor in her escape from the clutches of the warlord turns what had been a very serious drama into a silly farce, and it only gets back on his feet when his character – and his fantasies about Rai that generate her cameo dance – are dispensed with. His throw-away comic-book dialog and the silliness of his fight scenes detract from the film's primary gripping drama. The cast is nicely supported by Nana Patekar as the warlord, and the elegant Deepti Naval who is outstanding as his long-suffering wife who finally choses to stand up against him in one of the film's best scenes; Ritu Shivpuri and Rajshree Solanki are also very good as Sanjay's sisters in India, and very pleasing eye candy. But Sanjay himself overacts terribly, especially during obvious ad-libs. The directorial style of writer/director Krishna Wamsi is sloppy, rampant with rough transitions and abrupt cuts, although his camera movement is good. The musical underscore is also quite effective, moody, featuring wordless female voice over a small orchestral ensemble (too bad little if any of that made it onto SHAKTI's soundtrack cd, but Bollywood hasn't yet discovered the value of including score along with songs on their soundtrack albums, at least not in most cases). But SHAKTI is Karisma Kapoor's film, all the way, though, and the intensity of her performance once the film switches to India contrasts nicely with the gentle romance with which she engaged with Sanjay in the initial Canadian scenes. Despite the unevenness of much of the picture, Karisma's performance completely sells the film and solidifies its otherwise inconsistent measures. In a strange way, also, I found the story to be another take on the ostentation of royalty I'd noticed in CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER and MARIE ANTOINETTE, both of which I'd seen just prior, although SHAKTI of course is an entirely different kind of film; but the focus on a dysfunctional royal family – here living in the austerity of terrorism-controlled poverty in India rather than the elegance of Versailles or the massive megalomania of feudal China's Tang Dynasty – whose self-serving seeking of power brings ruin upon many others and forces an uprising of one kind or another provides the film with a notable subtext.@@@1 -After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.

I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.@@@0 -What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing.@@@1 -Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.@@@0 -This is the Who at their most powerful. Although before the masterwork Who's Next, which would provide anthems like Baba O'reily and Wont Get Fooled Again. This film shows the group in transition from mod rockers to one of the biggest live bands of the 70's.

Daltrey shows what being a front-man is all about, Entwistle steady as ever.

Moon is great, check out the ongoing conversation with the drum tech, and see him playing "side saddle" whilst having a bass drum head replaced!

Townsend even looks like he's enjoying himself occasionally!

Considering they took to the stage at 2am no one in the crowd was asleep!

There are not many bands these days could produce a set as tight as this and it is difficult to imagine any of the bands of today producing a concert that in 36 years time will be be enjoyed as much as this one.@@@1 -One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!@@@0 -This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.

The Original Drum and Bass.

There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.

This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.

We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.

At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".

John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.

The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.

To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.

The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details…" on that, okay.

The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!

I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.

Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith.@@@1 -With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.@@@0 -This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however.@@@1 -This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?@@@0 -Joe Don Baker is one of a handful of actors who is often better than his material, and almost always under appreciated. He's been in a ton of films either as a heavy or a hero, and has the type of strong, solid presence that Wallace Beery did half a century before him. Baker can delivery material that would sound ridiculous coming out of another actor, and that's what's so great about him. He really seems to mean what he's saying, regardless of how cliché, obvious or silly, which puts him in a league with Tommy Lee Jones, Oliver Reed and Don Stroud. It's what made the WALKING TALL Trilogy work so well, and that same magic is here in FINAL JUSTICE. This was a substantial hit in theaters and on video in the 80s, and it has aged a lot better than many of the perhaps better known action flicks of the era. By moving the action from Texas to Europe, there's a real timeless quality that doesn't jar you away from the action on screen. To be honest, I've always enjoyed the films of Greydon Clark, who is a no-nonsense director in the same vein as 1970s Clint Eastwood, and this is one of his best. FINAL JUSTICE is one of the lost gems of the late 80s, similar to MAN ON FIRE in its true grit and violence. I suppose if they remake this with The Rock, a whole new audience will come to love it as much as I do.@@@1 -The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.@@@0 -Kudos to Cesar Montano for reviving the Cebuano movie! Panaghoy sa Suba is very good -- it has the drama, the action, the romance, and scene that will make you laugh.

While the story is not that original (a love triangle -- or make a four-cornered-love, Japanese occupation, rebellion, American as lord), its presentation is something cool, especially it uses it original language -- bisaya for the Filipino, nipongo for the Japanese and English for the American.

This movie will go as one of this year's best Pinoy movies.

Go watch this!@@@1 -As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.

Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.

The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.

I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.

Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(@@@0 -Well it's been a long year and I'm down to reviewing the final film for 2004. Panaghoy Sa Suba (Call of The River) placed second in the recent Metro Manila Film Festival. As expected, it didn't do so well at the box office as it was too artsy for the common moviegoers especially since MMFF is the season where a lot of families go out to see movies.

It was quite intriguing to see a movie that was not in Filipino or English play out in the screen. I thought Cesar Montano did a good job both as a star and director. His great vision and creativity really helped this film. He was also very effective as the lead star and was able to express a wide range of emotions that was required for the film. Also performing well was young actress Rebecca Lusterio. She did a great job portraying Bikay, the younger sister of Duroy. I hope to see her in many more film projects in the future perhaps venturing into other genres. I think that the fact that this film was in her local dialect really helped her.

Some of the camera shots in the film were done very well. The scenery was made breathtaking even though I feel that if a lesser effort would have looked completely different.

In terms of the story I feel that the writers could have delved further into the lives of the lesser characters in the film. I certainly won't be raving about the story of this film.@@@1 -Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.

*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.

There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.

In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.@@@0 -I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. "Panaghoy" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the "period" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, "Panaghoy" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's "Oro, Plata, Mata", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's "The Color Purple" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of "Noli Me Tangere".@@@1 -When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.@@@0 -As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-@@@1 -People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.@@@0 -On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.

As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.

The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.

In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.

"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.

In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come.@@@1 -Honestly before I watched this movie, I had heard many people said this movie was a disgrace. I did not believe that since Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey have taken roles in this movie, and watched it by my own. Apparently they were right. I was really disappointed and wondering all the time during the movie - why the hell did I watch this movie.

Of course I was not expecting much from Justin as he really does not belong in the movie/theater business. But Morgan and Kevin? I could not stop asking myself why the heck they agreed to take part in Edison. To be honest, their roles are rather stupid.

Well you might think if the players suck, then I should pay more attention to the story. It is indeed story is the core of a movie, but guys... trust me... this is not a movie you want to give a credit for its story. Imagine this, a smart-ass journalist (Justin Timberlake) wrote a story against the system and at the same time learning how to become a 'real' journalist from his boss (Morgan Freeman). This all was supported by one agent who still has heart for justice (LL Cool J) and an brilliant investigator (Kevin Spacey). At the end, they beat the system with a happy ending story.

Jeez, I could not even carry on with this. Just recalling the movie is making me sick already. My advise guys, don't watch this! Please save your money and time for another movie.@@@0 -IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.@@@1 -Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.

Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).

Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.

Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.

Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.

Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.@@@0 -All i hear about is how poorly the animation is done. It may not be up to par with what everyone expects, but look at it this way. Would you expect perfection in hell? It is my belief that the animation was made dry and gritty on purpose. It was great to see her character transformation in this movie, considering it will probably be as close to live action as we will ever get. I hope for a sequel very soon. If we want live action, i think we may be better off with Chastity or Purgatori. I don't think Lady Death would transfer well to film. But be that as it may, It is my own personal belief that all the naysayers about this movie are DEAD wrong. No pun intended.@@@1 -An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.@@@0 -It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.

The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.

Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.

I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!@@@1 -This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.@@@0 -I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.@@@1 -Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...@@@0 -I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes.@@@1 -well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.@@@0 -Although not the best Anime I have ever seen but I enjoyed Lady Death.

I have never read the comic book and just saw this at the video store and decided to give it a chance.

The animation was OK, I got the sense of the 80's anime from it which is what set it off for me. Why everyone else hates that is beyond me.

Character development was fine. I like how they brought the transition from Hope to Lady Death around. for you who don't like it, obviously wasn't paying attention. Lucifer tells you how it happens, and she used his words.

Creamtor was a nice mentor/soldier for her. his dark bruiting style was perfect for this kind of movie.

I think everyone here who has bashed this needs to take another look at it and reconsider. cause everything people have bashed this can be said about everyones favorite anime Vampire Hunter D@@@1 -At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.@@@0 -REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........@@@1 -So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.@@@0 -In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.

I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.

Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me.

Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.@@@1 -From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!@@@0 -This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie.@@@1 -Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....@@@0 -Seldom do we see such short comments written by IMDb filmgoers. Perhaps it's because this lightweight dark comedy entertains and pleases without depth, or are we missing something? I'd watch it again if I had some incentive.

So what's a happenstance? To the French it is "Le Battement d'Ailes du Papillon" Serendipity? Fate? Perhaps it's an event that is the culmination of a series of random happenings. We've all had these (it's called life) but when looked at in this way, you begin to get the feeling that "random" might be more like "fated."

A 'happenstance' in this film might be an occurrence as minor as knocking a few leaves of lettuce off the back of a truck or as major as basing a major life decision on the accuracy of a stranger tossing of a pebble. All these incidents cause other events that ... well you get the picture? Dominoes. Multiply those by 30 characters and an average of 6 each and you have to really stretch your imagination to accept the remote chance that this scenario could happen. And I think that there's a diagnosis for those who believe that life is like this. But then this is the magic world of cinema.

We admit that it is fun to watch the way the writer/director weaves together these unrelated events into a story which enmeshes the lives of these French citizens. If you have a couple of hours and are looking for a whimsical escape, here's the place to do it. Or if you're recovering from surgery and aren't going anywhere anyway, this will engage you while your stitches are healing.

"Happenstance" will not go down as an award winner but it should develop a cult following. Stranger things have happened.

Soren Kierkegaard is attributed with the following: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward." If you looked at the detail in many of your own life experiences (meeting your first love, finding the perfect gift, your last auto accident) you would find a series of seemingly random events leading up to it.

That's the answer! I forgot to bring along an existentialist to explain "Happenstance" to me.@@@1 -There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.@@@0 -"Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)@@@1 -Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.@@@0 -"Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.

Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.

This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show.

"Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show:

- The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat.

- From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts

- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments.

- The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.

Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.

Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.

In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1.@@@1 -Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.

Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.

You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.

Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!@@@0 -This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.@@@1 -Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.@@@0 -Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.@@@1 -Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.@@@0 -This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!@@@1 -They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.@@@0 -This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected.@@@1 -A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.@@@0 -To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

@@@1 -Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.

Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.

This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.@@@0 -Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.

Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.

What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think "damn I really lucked out finding this movie". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.

I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone.@@@1 -A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.@@@0 -The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.@@@1 -STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.

The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.

Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.

NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.

My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.

I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.@@@0 -The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.@@@1 -A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.@@@0 -We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.

This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.

I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement.@@@1 -**Spoilers contained**

I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.@@@0 -When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...

This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!

THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.

B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).@@@1 -Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.

Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.

There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)

Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.

Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.@@@0 -The first and second seasons started off shakily, with good episodes sandwiched in between average ones, and at times resorting to clichéd stories. But once it started to set up the universe in which it exists and started to develop it's characters more, it became a lot more fun and entertaining.

The main reason this show succeeds it because of four men: Richard Dean Anderson, Peter Deluise, Joseph Malozzie and Paul Mullie. Richard's dry sense of humour makes to show so much better, Peter's directing is excellent and makes any episode so much more entertaining, and Joe & Paul never fail to make a funny, interesting episode together.

Once you understand what the show is about and get to know the characters, I doubt you won't like the show. For those getting into the show I suggest the episodes 'The Other Side', a good serious episode, and 'Window of Opportunity', a classic comic relief episode.@@@1 -The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.

The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.

Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.

That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.@@@0 -That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.

All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.

This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.

The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.

There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.

The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.

But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.

It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too.@@@1 -First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK@@@0 -Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..

Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..

Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..

This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors..@@@1 -When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.

SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.

During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again).

Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming.

What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.

I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery.

But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.@@@0 -The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.

Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.

Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.

Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.

This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.

The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast.@@@1 -Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.

This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.

Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.

Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.

Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!

It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.@@@0 -*some spoilers*

I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.

The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic.@@@1 -I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!@@@0 -... and I DO mean it. If not literally (after all, I have not seen every movie ever created!), at least, obviously, among the ones, the many I know.

5.3 ??? The rule of thumb with IMDb is this: sometimes movies rated very highly (for example, the piece of Kannes-Kompetition-Krowned-Korean-Kraap called "Oldboy") can be truly bad. But rarely a movie worth watching is actually rated under 6. This movie, very much worth watching, is. A disgrace.

True, I give it a 10 in protest. The movie is not perfect. Its true rating should be an 8 or a 9. It has some acting flaws (Belafonte especially), the script wanders around, sometimes. However, what we have here is one of the greatest directors of all times, the Czech Jan Kadar, directing two of the greatest actors of all time, the beloved, larger-than-life Zero Mostel and the sublime Ida Kaminska in an acting/poetic/moral tour de force. A pair made in Heaven! It's true that this movie, little flaws apart, does not pander to the average audiences, but those interested in watching an excellent (while, again, not beyond criticism) movie of the incomparable director who gave us "The Shop on the Main Street" (the best movie ever about Holocaust) should not miss this just because some silly IMDb rating system decides that "American Beauty" is better than "The Angel Levine".

It isn't.@@@1 -Spoilers

Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!

In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.

Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?

So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?

I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.

A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_1.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_1.txt index 3da2652..238d4a2 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_1.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_1.txt @@ -1,3 +1,203 @@ +What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.

Spoilers here:

Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.

End of Spoiler.

As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.@@@1 +I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.@@@0 +This is one of the best episode from the second season of MOH, I think Mick Garris has a problem with women... He kill'em all, they are often the victims (Screwfly solution, Pro-life, Valerie on the stairs, I don't remember the Argento's episode in season 1, etc., obviously Imprint). I think he enjoys to watch women been burn, torture, mutilated and I don't know. Never least "Right to die" is one of the best, with good turns and graphic scenes and suspense (specially with the photos from the cell scene, wonderful). The acting is like the entire series, regular I could be worst like "Pro-life" or "We scream for Ice cream". Also I think the plot it could be made for a movie and not just for an episode. The ideology of the series is horrible, killing and terminating women, mutilating animals and on and on... the first season it was better than the second one with episodes like "Cigarrette burns" (The best of all), "Homecoming" (The most funny), "Imprint" (really shocking).@@@1 +Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!@@@0 +I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.

The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.@@@1 +First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers.

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two.

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...@@@0 +Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.@@@1 +Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.@@@0 +A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.

This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.

The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".

Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.

While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3!@@@1 +You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)@@@0 +Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.

Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.

The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients.@@@1 +If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.

The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.

By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.@@@0 +Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.

Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.

Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.)

But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.

And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)

Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply.@@@1 +This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.@@@0 +I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.

The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.

I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.

Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future.@@@1 +Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).@@@0 +Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.@@@1 +Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?@@@0 +This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure.@@@1 +FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****@@@0 +But the fun is in the journey.

I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.

Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.

The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.

Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry...@@@1 +As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.@@@0 +This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.@@@1 +Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.@@@0 +As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.@@@1 +'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10@@@0 +Does anyone know the exact quote about "time and love" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul!

I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship.

Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years.

He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.

This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.

I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.

Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE.

Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks!@@@1 +I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????@@@0 +I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.

But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.

Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders."

The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).

Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.

I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.@@@1 +Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.

Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **@@@0 +A sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths as they prepare for their weddings. The ex-cop writer and the public school teacher fall for each other in this great new york setting, even though they are marrying other people. Maybe a little trite in that the "partners" are both type A personalities, while our protagonists are much more relaxed. Not anything heavy, but it made me smile. And hey for the guys - sell the Natasha Henstridge angle, and the gals - sell them the sappy romance, everyone wins!@@@1 +I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .@@@0 +It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.@@@1 +Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.

LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.

Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.

Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".

Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.@@@0 +Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.

Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception.

It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.

I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.@@@1 +Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.@@@0 +A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch.@@@1 +It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.@@@0 +I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.

Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.

Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.

Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.

God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.

This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too.@@@1 +Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.@@@0 +I caught this film at a test screening. Was very surprised to find a really sweet and fun story. Well acted. Natasha Henstridge is the next Julia Roberts. The male lead was awsome. Very funny film. Takes place in the best locations in New York. Made me want to go there. I just saw "You've got mail" I thought "It Had To Be You' was a much better story. Fresher.

It was clean and great for whole family. I think it will do well. Audience I saw it with loved it. A definite recommend!@@@1 +SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).@@@0 +This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.@@@1 +how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.

rating:0.3@@@0 +I just can't understand the negative comments about this film. Yes it is a typical boy-meets-girl romance but it is done with such flair and polish that the time just flies by. Henstridge (talk about winning the gene-pool lottery!) is as magnetic and alluring as ever (who says the golden age of cinema is dead?) and Vartan holds his own.

There is simmering chemistry between the two leads; the film is most alive when they share a scene - lots! It is done so well that you find yourself willing them to get together...

Ignore the negative comments - if you are feeling a bit blue, watch this flick, you will feel so much better. If you are already happy, then you will be euphoric.

(PS: I am 33, Male, from the UK and a hopeless romantic still searching for his Princess...)@@@1 +I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.

OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.

As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.

I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.@@@0 +This great movie has failed to register a higher rating than 5!Why not!It is a great portrayal of the life of Christ without the ruthless sensationalism of The Passion of The Christ.Johnny Cash did great things for God which amazingly are shunned and neglected in areas where they should matter most,like our churches.The film itself took less than a month to film as Johnny felt the strong presence of God guiding him through it.Great credit to everyone involved in this overwhelmingly sincere movie which will always be cherished by its fans.At least the Billy Graham crusade rated it highly enough to use it as a prime source of education for new Christians.Thanks Fox for producing it.As Walk the Line proved that it was freakish that this man survived yet alone produced such an underrated masterpiece.Movies are not canonized through popular vote as this production proves! In summary I believe that this film is one of the worlds great documentaries as it is forthright, honestly portrayed and a great witness to the Christian faith!@@@1 +Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.@@@0 +This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.@@@1 +Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.@@@0 +Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.

But....

1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.

I'd love to buy the CD.

Tom Paine Texas, USA@@@1 +i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.

that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.

nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.

i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.

however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.

great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.

whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.@@@0 +There are few films or movies I consider favorites over the years. The Gospel road was one of them. I watched this as a young teen and would like the opportunity to watch it again. My favorite parts were the fact that

1/Jesus was blond,

2/the last supper was a huge meal,

3/ he liked playing with the children,

4/His death was for all people and for all time.

The movie may not have been theologically sound or high quality acting, but it touched my heart at that time. Besides I am a Johnny Cash fan and it was a brave venture. If it ever comes out on DVD, I will purchase it purely for sentimental reasons.@@@1 +More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.

It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.

"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.

A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy.

But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.

Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!

Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.

The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.@@@0 +I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool.@@@1 +Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.

I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.@@@0 +I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well.

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out.@@@1 +A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again – period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.@@@0 +I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting.

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this.

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence.@@@1 +I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.@@@0 +Ah, I loved this movie. I think it had it all. It made me laugh out loud over a dozen of times. Yes, I am a girl, so I'm writing this from a girl's perspective. I think it's a shame it only scored 5.2 in rating. Too many guys voting? It was far above other romantic comedies. Just because I'm female I don't enjoy all chic flicks, on the contrary I prefer other genres. Romantic comedies tend to be shallow and not as funny as they meant to be. But like I said, this movie had it all, almost, in my opinion. Great script, good one-liners, fine acting. Although Eva Longoria Parker's character reminded very much of Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives, but so what? It was awesome. I will keep this film for rainy days, days when I feel low and need a few laughs.@@@1 +This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.

Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.

Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.

Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.@@@0 +This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.

I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.

Jason Bigg's character was the best though.

Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.

This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.

This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.

Good job in writing.@@@1 +When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.@@@0 +This is a great film.

I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).

But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.

Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.

In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.

Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.@@@1 +I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.@@@0 +Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.@@@1 +San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better!

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.@@@0 +I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").

The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.

In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.@@@1 +If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.@@@0 +i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.

overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.

overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it.@@@1 +This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.@@@0 +Look it's Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd in a movie about a dead girlfriend haunting the new girlfriend. It's Gabrielle from Desperate Housewives and the guy who wore "sex Panther cologne" in Anchorman. If you are expecting a Golden Globe nominated movie then you need to rethink how you look at movies. However, if you are willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and want to watch a funny movie then you've come to the right place. The characters are all funny. They work together very well. The real match up is Paul Rudd and Lake Bell. He's as funny as he was on Friends and she was funny and good looking all at the same time. I went with my wife, she enjoyed it and so did I.@@@1 +Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.@@@0 +Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.@@@1 +It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)@@@0 +I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation@@@1 +The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4.

I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.@@@0 +In complete contrast to the opinions of the other review, this film actually was surprisingly good! I reluctantly went to see it and expected to be bored by clichés, obvious jokes and overacting, all of which the trailer had promised.

However, after 5 minutes in I found myself genuinely laughing and enjoying the refreshing acting. With only one 'toilet humour' gag, Over Her Dead Body manages to actually come up with realistically funny scenarios and, without spoiling anything too much, some of the moments involving animals are hilarious.

The staple ingredients of a good film are all there; script, director and actors and compared some other recent attempts at romantic comedy, this film stands tall.

Sure, you aren't going to learn anything or have a spiritual awakening, but if you go with an open mind you will more than likely have a good time!@@@1 +The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.@@@0 +Once when I was in college and we had an international fair, the Russian section had a Soviet-era poster saying "Ne boltay!", meaning "Don't gossip!". I "translated" it for the "generation" of TV watchers as "Don't be Gladys Kravitz!" (in reference to the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched").

However, when you see the result of gossip in the Pvt. Snafu short "Rumors", you see that it's not quite a laughing matter. In this case, the perpetually witless soldier overhears something about bombing and immediately assumes that the Axis Powers have attacked the United States. So, he tells it to someone, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and it continues. As in "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming", the story gets blown more and more out of proportion each time, so that when it gets back to Snafu...well, you know what I mean! Yes, it's mostly WWII propaganda - complete with a derogatory term for the Japanese - but I have to say that the Pvt. Snafu shorts were actually quite funny. Of course, since they had Dr. Seuss writing and Mel Blanc providing the voices, it's no surprise that these came out rather cool. Worth seeing.@@@1 +Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".@@@0 +Friz Freleng's 'Rumours' is an excellent Private Snafu cartoon that warns against spreading panic-inducing rumours during wartime. Produced, as were all the Snafu shorts, to be shown to military audiences as entertaining instructional films, 'Rumours' is extremely imaginative and crams tons of ideas into its very brief lifespan. When Snafu starts a rumour about a bombing, it escalates into an eventual rumour that America has lost the war. This is illustrated brilliantly by way of a long, rubbery piece of baloney and several strange, fictional creatures who come back to haunt Snafu with ever more terrible news about his country's military. 'Rumours' is inventive, fast paced and funny, all of which help to overshadow the rather laboured, "don't badmouth the military" message. It stands up as one of the best of the Private Snafu shorts.@@@1 +When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.

I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.@@@0 +RUMORS is a memorable entry in the wartime series of instructional cartoons starring "Private Snafu." The films were aimed at servicemen and were directed, animated and scored by some of the top talent from Warner Bros.' Termite Terrace, including Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, and Carl Stalling. The invaluable Mel Blanc supplied the voice for Snafu, and the stories and rhyming narration for many of the films was supplied by Theodor Geisel, i.e. Dr. Seuss. The idea was to convey basic concepts with humor and vivid imagery, using the character of Snafu as a perfect negative example: he was the dope, the little twerp who would do everything you're NOT supposed to do. According to Chuck Jones the scripts had to be approved by Pentagon officials, but Army brass also permitted the animators an unusual amount of freedom concerning language and bawdy jokes, certainly more than theatrical censorship of the time would allow-- all for the greater good, of course.

As the title would indicate, this cartoon is an illustration of the damaging power of rumors. The setting is an Army camp. Private Snafu sits next to another soldier in the latrine (something you won't see in any other Hollywood films of the era) and their casual conversation starts the ball rolling. We observe as an offhand remark about a bombing is misinterpreted, then exaggerated, then turned into an increasingly frightening rumor that sweeps the camp. The imagery is indeed vivid: the brain of one anxious soldier is depicted as a percolating pot, while the fevered speech of another is rendered as steamy hot air, i.e "balloon juice." A soldier "shoots his mouth off," cannon-style, and before you know it actual baloney is flying in every direction. Winged baloney, at that. Panicked soldiers tell each other that the Brooklyn Bridge has been pulverized, Coney Island wiped out, enemy troops have landed on the White House lawn, and the Japanese are in California. The visuals become ever more surreal and nightmarish until at last the camp is quarantined for "Rumor-itis" and Private Snafu has been locked up in a padded cell.

This is a highly effective piece of work. The filmmakers dramatized their theme with wit and startling energy, and the message is still a valid one. In recent years we've seen that catastrophic events (real or imagined) can breed all kinds of wild rumors that spread more rapidly than ever thanks to communication advances. Because the technology has improved, the Private Snafus of our time are able to broadcast their own balloon juice via e-mail, cellphones and blogging. Consequently, RUMORS is a rare example of a wartime educational film whose essential message doesn't feel at all dated; in fact it may be more timely than ever.@@@1 +No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.@@@0 +This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time@@@1 +I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.

I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation.

None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.@@@0 +Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 +Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.

Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.

Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?

Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period."

Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.

Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.

Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.

In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.

Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.@@@0 +Tim Krabbe is the praised author of 'Het Gouden Ei', a novel that was put on the screen twice ('Spoorloos' and 'The Vanishing'). One of the Dutch writer's more recent works is 'De Grot', a psychological thriller about two totally different men, Egon and Axel, who meet at a youth camp and, surprising enough, become friends for dear life. Egon is a quiet, somewhat dull person, who spends his time studying and writing geography books. Axel, on the other hand, is a charismatic 'party-animal', a heavy drinking criminal whose everyday's concern is to get a woman into his bedroom. From the moment they meet, Axel has a strong influence on Egon, while the latter envies him because he has a good life without really doing anything (such as reading thick books like Egon); ultimately, Egon is even dragged by Egon into illegal practices himself, which leads to a fatal drug transport in a distant Asian country.

After having read the book last year, I was surprised the critics were quite positive about it. In my opinion, the book suffers especially from the complex structure. While Krabbe presents the story as an absorbing portrait of an uncommon relationship between two people, the plot becomes more of a puzzle: the many episodes are not presented chronologically, so that two successive scenes are seldom in the same episode. Because of this, the story feels surprisingly remote: you often need to know a character's background to really care for him or her. Another complaint was the fact that the main characters, Egon and Axel, are a little stereotypical. Egon IS 'the' dull intellectual, while Axel IS his exact opposite. In real life, such one-dimensional people rarely exist; in books and films, they always seem to be there, taking away a lot of credibility.

Despite all this, the film was a pleasant surprise, being much better than the book. The adaptation excels in its beautiful cinematography, humour and acting: Fedja van Huet (Egon) is one of the few Dutch actors who can make you forget he IS acting (which is, in my opinion, the highest an actor can achieve). The drawbacks of the film, however, are the same as the book's: mainly because the characters are one-dimensional, they are so predictable that it becomes annoying. Guess who wrote the script? Indeed, Krabbe himself. It is obvious that this talented director (that's what the movie makes clear anyway) is hampered by a deficient screenplay. Perhaps Koolhoven should just have chosen a better book.

7/10@@@1 +MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½*

Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence)

By Blake French:

Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said.

This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny.

How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?

The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.

"Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money.

So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.

@@@0 +'De Grot' is a terrific Dutch thriller, based on the book written by Tim Krabbé. Another of his books, 'Het Gouden Ei' was made into the great Dutch mystery thriller called 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing') in 1988. This one is not as good as that thriller (although much better than the American remake also called 'The Vanishing') but there are times it comes close.

Especially the opening moments are terrific. We see a man, later we learn his name is Egon Wagter (Fedja van Huêt), coming from a plane in Thailand. When he picks up his bags it is pretty clear that he is smuggling something across the border. These scenes are perfectly directed, photographed and acted. A kind of suspense is created that you would normally not have in an opening scene like this. Later we see how Egon makes his deal in Thailand with a woman, both stating that they have never done anything like this.

From this point the movie is constantly flashback and flash-forward. We see how Egon, still as a child (here played by Erik van der Horst), befriends a guy named Axel (as a kid played by Benja Bruijning). We learn how they grew up as friends, sort of, and how Axel (as an adult played by Marcel Hensema) became a criminal. Egon in the meanwhile goes to college and settles with a woman. Around this time he sometimes meets Axel but does not really want anything to do with him.

The movie is chronological in a way. It shows Egon and Axel as kids, than as students, young adults, and in their mid-thirties. But from time to time, like I said, the movie goes back to when they were kids and jumps forward again. Every time we see them as kids it explains something that happens when they are adults.

Minor spoilers herein.

The title means 'The Cave', and it is the cave that gives the movie its happy ending, although it is in fact not that happy. Like the beginning, the ending is terrific. The middle part of the movie is entertaining and in a way it distracts our attention of the first scenes, only to come back at that point in the end. It is the editing that gives the movie its happy ending, although we can say the dramatic ending is happy in a way as well.@@@1 +This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!@@@0 +Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....@@@1 +How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.@@@0 +De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation).@@@1 +This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 +I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.

But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.

Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.

And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.@@@1 +Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.@@@0 +Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like "Laggan" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. "Devdas", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit "Bollywood" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words "defending his Village" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for "Bollywood". All said and done this is one good Movie.@@@1 +This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.@@@0 +I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as "Love's a bitch!") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it.@@@1 +This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player "downtown" to hit a home run, clearly "downtown" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.@@@0 +good movie, good music, good background and an acceptable plot. but the main point again as his movies tend to be, the man is the best actor in idia and can turn dust into gold. nana patekar. this may be his second best performance after parinda( others may disagree). although other movies are not far behind. one man that will never ever disappoint you.

good movie although i think shahrukh was a luxury this movie could have done without. you can see in his movies, others try very hard to reach his heights and act out of their skins. but this man is really something elase.

the movie is cool, the music and direction is excellent plot a bit thin but the screen play and dialog again very good. a must watch.@@@1 +Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.

@@@0 +This is probably Karisma at her best, apart from Zubeidaa. Nana Patekar also gives out his best, without even trying. The story is very good at times but by the end seems to drag, especially when Shahrukh comes in the picture. What really made me like it were the performances of the leads, the dialog delivery, as well as the story, for what it was. It could've been directed better, and edited. The supporting case was even great, including Karima's mother in law, even though she just had one shining moment, it was great to watch her.

The sets were also pretty good. I didn't really like their portrayal of a Canadian family, but once they step in India, it's as real as it gets.

Overall, I would give it a thumbs up!@@@1 +This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.

The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!@@@0 +A strong woman oriented subject after long, director Krishna Vamsi's Shakti- The Power, the Desi version of the Hollywood hit Not Without My Daughter is actress Sridevi's first home-production. A story about a woman's fight against harsh injustice.

The story of the film revolves around Nandini (Karisma Kapoor) who lives in Canada with her two uncles (Tiku Talsania, Jaspal Bhatti). There she meets Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), falls in love with him and they soon marry. Their family is complete when Nandini has a boy, Raja (Master Jai Gidwani). But their happiness is short lived, as the news of Shekhar's ailing mother (Deepti Naval)makes them leave their perfect life in Canada and come to India. And that's when the problems start. From the moment they reach

India, both are shocked to see the pollution and the vast throngs of people everywhere. They take a crowded train to reach Shekhar's village and when they finally reach the station, they have to catch a long bus drive to his village. The filthy sweaty bus combined with the uncertain terrain makes it a never-ending drive. And unfortunately for them, a frenzied mob that beat Shekhar out of shape for no fault of his attacks their bus. Fortunately, they get shot dead just in time before they can further harm him. After that, they drive to the handing Havel where Shekhar''s father, Narsimha (Nana Patekar) lives with his wife (Deepti Naval). Nandani realized that her father-in-law is in command as soon as she enters the place, but her only solace is her mother-in-law's warm welcome.

Living there, Nandini learns of her father-in-laws tyrannical behavior and realizes that ruthless killing is a way of life for him. The day she sees her father-in-law teach her son to throw a bomb, she loses it and lashes out against him, insisting to Shekhar that they move back to Canada. But terror strikes again when Shekhar is murdered one day, leaving a broken down Nandini alone with her son in this strange land where she is harrowed by a cruel father-in-law. Her fight against this man to save her son is what makes up the climax of this emotional heart-wrenching film.

What sets apart Shakti from most films being made off late is also the rural setting of the movie. The only drawback is Ismail Darbar''s music, which fails to rise above the script. The only saving grace is the sexy item number Ishq Kameena, which has been composed by Anu Malik. Another pat for the director comes because he has extracted some splendid performances from his cast. Karisma Kapoor is the life of the film and has given a moving performance as a helpless mother. She is sure to win awards for this heated portrayal. Second is actor Nana Patekar who is back with a bang with this film. His uncouth mannerisms suit him to the hilt and he's shown his versatility once again with this role. Sanjay Kapoor is the surprise packet of the film with a sincere and effective portrayal that stands up against both the other actors. Deepti Naval too is in top form and her Pr-climax showdown with Nana is praiseworthy. Shahrukh's cameo provides the lighter moments and surely he's been pulled in to get the required star value. Though his role was not really required, he's done it well. Overall, Shakti is a far superior film than most churned out these days and the Pr-release hype is sure to get it a good opening. Shakti is sure to get the critics and audience thumps up. So what if the film needs to be desperately trimmed by at least 2 reels to better the impact. Shakti still has the power to go on without a hitch!@@@1 +For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.@@@0 +Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!@@@1 +Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.@@@0 +Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done.@@@1 +Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?@@@0 +Well, I'll be honest: It is not exactly a Sholay. But you cant get a Sholay every week. In fact, you could see distinct signatures of "not without my Daughter"(Sally Field, 1991) in this movie. However, as most "inspired" movies go, this one was a well-inspired one, well handled and well done. Nana Patekar, as usual, tends to overdo his hysterics, but all others are commendable. Specially so about Dipti Naval: Saw her after a long time, but she hasn't lost any of her grace. In fact, she has performed much better that when I last saw her. Another one of the Bollywood stars that seem to grow more beautiful as they age?

All in all, a nice watch.@@@1 +Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.@@@0 +The beauty of this film is evidenced in the great portrayal of the power of a mother's love, the exceptional performances, the steady execution and the quite innovative script. The film tells the story of an Indian woman, Nandini, who lives in Canada with her husband Shekhar and little kid Raja. All of a sudden her husband informs her that his family in India (of whom she had not even known) is in troubles and the couple rush to India. When they get into the village, Nanadini is shocked and terrified to witness a very wild rural culture; Shekhar's family, ruled by his cruel, highly cynical and merciless father Narasimha, lives a poor and highly violent lifestyle which is full of murder and terror and where women are subservient and helpless. Nandini starts nagging Shekhar to return home, but he is soon killed by his father's enemies. When she wants to leave, Narasimha refuses to let her take Raja back to India. Here starts the intense struggle which can be called "Nandini vs. Narasimha".

India is not presented in a particularly positive light in this film, but it only shows a very tiny minority of its rural areas, so it may be even correct. The portrayal is in my view fair and not one-sided because the positive side is also presented to an extent. Such a horrifying sight could be shown in a film about any country in the world. The locations are amazing, the music is wonderful, and Krishna Vamshi's direction is aided by very effective cinematography and good editing. One thing that must be noted is the very ear-pleasing background score by Ismail Darbar, it is beautiful. The characters are very well defined though we do get to see both their bright and dark sides in different portions of the film. Portrayed realistically throughout, the film flows well and is an interesting and fairly entertaining watch. Its dialogues are superb and intelligently written, and although the shocking proceedings can be very disturbing at some points, a great deal of positive moments manage to relieve the tension.

The film's biggest strength is the performances. Karisma Kapoor is breathtaking and very believable as Nandini. Her ability to strike a balance between vulnerability and unrestrained emotion is simply incredible. She displays so much intensity, impulsiveness, anguish and determination as the mother who wants to get her son back that this little kid seems to be her own son. Her outbreaks while facing off Nana Patekar which are like volcanic eruptions show us how the simplest of women can become a tigress when it comes to her child. After Fiza, this is her most powerful performance. One of the greatest actors Indian cinema has seen, Nana Patekar is indescribable as Narasimha. He manages to be hateful as Narasimha yet admirable as the actor who plays him. Patekar displays cruelty, wittiness and even humanity with total conviction. He is outstanding. Another great performance comes unsurprisingly from India's most underrated actress, Deepti Naval, who sensitises her character to perfection. Sanjay Kapoor is just adequate and Shahrukh Khan provides great comic relief. Anyway, do watch Shakti - it could have been better, but it is definitely a must-watch.@@@1 +This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.@@@0 +If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.

I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role.

One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.@@@1 +I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.

Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.@@@0 +The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.@@@1 +There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.

The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).

When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.@@@0 +Uneven Bollywood drama. Karisma Kapoor is excellent as an Indian woman in Canada who marries a friend (Sanjay Kapoor), has a child, and then visits his family in India only to find they are terrorist warlords. Drama and tragedy ensue, and the film becomes a kind of NOT WITHOUT MY BABY styled thriller. Film is compelling, its few song/dance numbers are uninteresting and needless, the gaity of Bollywood song and dance is really out of character for the intensity of this film's drama, at least once we've left the comforting confines of their Canadian love nest – although one number involving a cameo by the stunning Aishwarya Rai is enjoyably provocative, if ultimately misplaced as well. Likewise, the inclusion of Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky drifter who helps Kapoor in her escape from the clutches of the warlord turns what had been a very serious drama into a silly farce, and it only gets back on his feet when his character – and his fantasies about Rai that generate her cameo dance – are dispensed with. His throw-away comic-book dialog and the silliness of his fight scenes detract from the film's primary gripping drama. The cast is nicely supported by Nana Patekar as the warlord, and the elegant Deepti Naval who is outstanding as his long-suffering wife who finally choses to stand up against him in one of the film's best scenes; Ritu Shivpuri and Rajshree Solanki are also very good as Sanjay's sisters in India, and very pleasing eye candy. But Sanjay himself overacts terribly, especially during obvious ad-libs. The directorial style of writer/director Krishna Wamsi is sloppy, rampant with rough transitions and abrupt cuts, although his camera movement is good. The musical underscore is also quite effective, moody, featuring wordless female voice over a small orchestral ensemble (too bad little if any of that made it onto SHAKTI's soundtrack cd, but Bollywood hasn't yet discovered the value of including score along with songs on their soundtrack albums, at least not in most cases). But SHAKTI is Karisma Kapoor's film, all the way, though, and the intensity of her performance once the film switches to India contrasts nicely with the gentle romance with which she engaged with Sanjay in the initial Canadian scenes. Despite the unevenness of much of the picture, Karisma's performance completely sells the film and solidifies its otherwise inconsistent measures. In a strange way, also, I found the story to be another take on the ostentation of royalty I'd noticed in CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER and MARIE ANTOINETTE, both of which I'd seen just prior, although SHAKTI of course is an entirely different kind of film; but the focus on a dysfunctional royal family – here living in the austerity of terrorism-controlled poverty in India rather than the elegance of Versailles or the massive megalomania of feudal China's Tang Dynasty – whose self-serving seeking of power brings ruin upon many others and forces an uprising of one kind or another provides the film with a notable subtext.@@@1 +After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.

I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.@@@0 +What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing.@@@1 +Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.@@@0 +This is the Who at their most powerful. Although before the masterwork Who's Next, which would provide anthems like Baba O'reily and Wont Get Fooled Again. This film shows the group in transition from mod rockers to one of the biggest live bands of the 70's.

Daltrey shows what being a front-man is all about, Entwistle steady as ever.

Moon is great, check out the ongoing conversation with the drum tech, and see him playing "side saddle" whilst having a bass drum head replaced!

Townsend even looks like he's enjoying himself occasionally!

Considering they took to the stage at 2am no one in the crowd was asleep!

There are not many bands these days could produce a set as tight as this and it is difficult to imagine any of the bands of today producing a concert that in 36 years time will be be enjoyed as much as this one.@@@1 +One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!@@@0 +This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.

The Original Drum and Bass.

There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.

This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.

We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.

At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".

John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.

The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.

To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.

The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details…" on that, okay.

The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!

I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.

Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith.@@@1 +With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.@@@0 +This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as "Mitchell in Malta." At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however.@@@1 +This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?@@@0 +Joe Don Baker is one of a handful of actors who is often better than his material, and almost always under appreciated. He's been in a ton of films either as a heavy or a hero, and has the type of strong, solid presence that Wallace Beery did half a century before him. Baker can delivery material that would sound ridiculous coming out of another actor, and that's what's so great about him. He really seems to mean what he's saying, regardless of how cliché, obvious or silly, which puts him in a league with Tommy Lee Jones, Oliver Reed and Don Stroud. It's what made the WALKING TALL Trilogy work so well, and that same magic is here in FINAL JUSTICE. This was a substantial hit in theaters and on video in the 80s, and it has aged a lot better than many of the perhaps better known action flicks of the era. By moving the action from Texas to Europe, there's a real timeless quality that doesn't jar you away from the action on screen. To be honest, I've always enjoyed the films of Greydon Clark, who is a no-nonsense director in the same vein as 1970s Clint Eastwood, and this is one of his best. FINAL JUSTICE is one of the lost gems of the late 80s, similar to MAN ON FIRE in its true grit and violence. I suppose if they remake this with The Rock, a whole new audience will come to love it as much as I do.@@@1 +The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.@@@0 +Kudos to Cesar Montano for reviving the Cebuano movie! Panaghoy sa Suba is very good -- it has the drama, the action, the romance, and scene that will make you laugh.

While the story is not that original (a love triangle -- or make a four-cornered-love, Japanese occupation, rebellion, American as lord), its presentation is something cool, especially it uses it original language -- bisaya for the Filipino, nipongo for the Japanese and English for the American.

This movie will go as one of this year's best Pinoy movies.

Go watch this!@@@1 +As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.

Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.

The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.

I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.

Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(@@@0 +Well it's been a long year and I'm down to reviewing the final film for 2004. Panaghoy Sa Suba (Call of The River) placed second in the recent Metro Manila Film Festival. As expected, it didn't do so well at the box office as it was too artsy for the common moviegoers especially since MMFF is the season where a lot of families go out to see movies.

It was quite intriguing to see a movie that was not in Filipino or English play out in the screen. I thought Cesar Montano did a good job both as a star and director. His great vision and creativity really helped this film. He was also very effective as the lead star and was able to express a wide range of emotions that was required for the film. Also performing well was young actress Rebecca Lusterio. She did a great job portraying Bikay, the younger sister of Duroy. I hope to see her in many more film projects in the future perhaps venturing into other genres. I think that the fact that this film was in her local dialect really helped her.

Some of the camera shots in the film were done very well. The scenery was made breathtaking even though I feel that if a lesser effort would have looked completely different.

In terms of the story I feel that the writers could have delved further into the lives of the lesser characters in the film. I certainly won't be raving about the story of this film.@@@1 +Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.

*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.

There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.

In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.@@@0 +I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. "Panaghoy" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the "period" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, "Panaghoy" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's "Oro, Plata, Mata", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's "The Color Purple" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of "Noli Me Tangere".@@@1 +When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.@@@0 +As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-@@@1 +People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.@@@0 +On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.

As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.

The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.

In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.

"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.

In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come.@@@1 +Honestly before I watched this movie, I had heard many people said this movie was a disgrace. I did not believe that since Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey have taken roles in this movie, and watched it by my own. Apparently they were right. I was really disappointed and wondering all the time during the movie - why the hell did I watch this movie.

Of course I was not expecting much from Justin as he really does not belong in the movie/theater business. But Morgan and Kevin? I could not stop asking myself why the heck they agreed to take part in Edison. To be honest, their roles are rather stupid.

Well you might think if the players suck, then I should pay more attention to the story. It is indeed story is the core of a movie, but guys... trust me... this is not a movie you want to give a credit for its story. Imagine this, a smart-ass journalist (Justin Timberlake) wrote a story against the system and at the same time learning how to become a 'real' journalist from his boss (Morgan Freeman). This all was supported by one agent who still has heart for justice (LL Cool J) and an brilliant investigator (Kevin Spacey). At the end, they beat the system with a happy ending story.

Jeez, I could not even carry on with this. Just recalling the movie is making me sick already. My advise guys, don't watch this! Please save your money and time for another movie.@@@0 +IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.@@@1 +Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.

Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).

Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.

Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.

Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.

Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.@@@0 +All i hear about is how poorly the animation is done. It may not be up to par with what everyone expects, but look at it this way. Would you expect perfection in hell? It is my belief that the animation was made dry and gritty on purpose. It was great to see her character transformation in this movie, considering it will probably be as close to live action as we will ever get. I hope for a sequel very soon. If we want live action, i think we may be better off with Chastity or Purgatori. I don't think Lady Death would transfer well to film. But be that as it may, It is my own personal belief that all the naysayers about this movie are DEAD wrong. No pun intended.@@@1 +An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.@@@0 +It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.

The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.

Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.

I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!@@@1 +This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.@@@0 +I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.@@@1 +Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...@@@0 +I love the movies and own the comics, the comics are different then the movie but still I'd give it: 10 out of 10. It was awesome. If the movies got anymore awesome. I would have her babies. And I am female. Read the comics you won't regret it. Yes in this movie since Brian P. the artist for her died we don't get nearly as good artistic work. I mean seriously don't get me wrong these people did great, but different versions for different people. Different Strokes for different folks as the saying goes. Any guy who doesn't go bonkers over her is insane, or does not like women, or you know just plan insane. If I could count on my fingers how in love and how many times I have read the comics I would run out of fingers for sure, but hey there is always toes.@@@1 +well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.@@@0 +Although not the best Anime I have ever seen but I enjoyed Lady Death.

I have never read the comic book and just saw this at the video store and decided to give it a chance.

The animation was OK, I got the sense of the 80's anime from it which is what set it off for me. Why everyone else hates that is beyond me.

Character development was fine. I like how they brought the transition from Hope to Lady Death around. for you who don't like it, obviously wasn't paying attention. Lucifer tells you how it happens, and she used his words.

Creamtor was a nice mentor/soldier for her. his dark bruiting style was perfect for this kind of movie.

I think everyone here who has bashed this needs to take another look at it and reconsider. cause everything people have bashed this can be said about everyones favorite anime Vampire Hunter D@@@1 +At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.@@@0 +REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........@@@1 +So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.@@@0 +In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.

I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.

Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me.

Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.@@@1 +From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!@@@0 +This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie.@@@1 +Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....@@@0 +Seldom do we see such short comments written by IMDb filmgoers. Perhaps it's because this lightweight dark comedy entertains and pleases without depth, or are we missing something? I'd watch it again if I had some incentive.

So what's a happenstance? To the French it is "Le Battement d'Ailes du Papillon" Serendipity? Fate? Perhaps it's an event that is the culmination of a series of random happenings. We've all had these (it's called life) but when looked at in this way, you begin to get the feeling that "random" might be more like "fated."

A 'happenstance' in this film might be an occurrence as minor as knocking a few leaves of lettuce off the back of a truck or as major as basing a major life decision on the accuracy of a stranger tossing of a pebble. All these incidents cause other events that ... well you get the picture? Dominoes. Multiply those by 30 characters and an average of 6 each and you have to really stretch your imagination to accept the remote chance that this scenario could happen. And I think that there's a diagnosis for those who believe that life is like this. But then this is the magic world of cinema.

We admit that it is fun to watch the way the writer/director weaves together these unrelated events into a story which enmeshes the lives of these French citizens. If you have a couple of hours and are looking for a whimsical escape, here's the place to do it. Or if you're recovering from surgery and aren't going anywhere anyway, this will engage you while your stitches are healing.

"Happenstance" will not go down as an award winner but it should develop a cult following. Stranger things have happened.

Soren Kierkegaard is attributed with the following: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward." If you looked at the detail in many of your own life experiences (meeting your first love, finding the perfect gift, your last auto accident) you would find a series of seemingly random events leading up to it.

That's the answer! I forgot to bring along an existentialist to explain "Happenstance" to me.@@@1 +There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.@@@0 +"Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)@@@1 +Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.@@@0 +"Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.

Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.

This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show.

"Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show:

- The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat.

- From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts

- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments.

- The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.

Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.

Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.

In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1.@@@1 +Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.

Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.

You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.

Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!@@@0 +This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.@@@1 +Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.@@@0 +Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.@@@1 +Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.@@@0 +This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!@@@1 +They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.@@@0 +This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected.@@@1 +A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.@@@0 +To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

@@@1 +Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.

Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.

This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.@@@0 +Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.

Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.

What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think "damn I really lucked out finding this movie". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.

I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone.@@@1 +A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.@@@0 +The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.@@@1 +STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.

The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.

Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.

NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.

My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.

I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.@@@0 +The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.@@@1 +A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.@@@0 +We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.

This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.

I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement.@@@1 +**Spoilers contained**

I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.@@@0 +When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...

This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!

THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.

B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).@@@1 +Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.

Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.

There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)

Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.

Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.@@@0 +The first and second seasons started off shakily, with good episodes sandwiched in between average ones, and at times resorting to clichéd stories. But once it started to set up the universe in which it exists and started to develop it's characters more, it became a lot more fun and entertaining.

The main reason this show succeeds it because of four men: Richard Dean Anderson, Peter Deluise, Joseph Malozzie and Paul Mullie. Richard's dry sense of humour makes to show so much better, Peter's directing is excellent and makes any episode so much more entertaining, and Joe & Paul never fail to make a funny, interesting episode together.

Once you understand what the show is about and get to know the characters, I doubt you won't like the show. For those getting into the show I suggest the episodes 'The Other Side', a good serious episode, and 'Window of Opportunity', a classic comic relief episode.@@@1 +The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.

The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.

Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.

That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.@@@0 +That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.

All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.

This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.

The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.

There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.

The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.

But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.

It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too.@@@1 +First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK@@@0 +Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..

Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..

Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..

This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors..@@@1 +When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.

SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.

During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again).

Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming.

What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.

I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery.

But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.@@@0 +The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.

Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.

Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.

Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.

This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.

The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast.@@@1 +Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.

This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.

Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.

Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.

Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!

It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.@@@0 +*some spoilers*

I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.

The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic.@@@1 +I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!@@@0 +... and I DO mean it. If not literally (after all, I have not seen every movie ever created!), at least, obviously, among the ones, the many I know.

5.3 ??? The rule of thumb with IMDb is this: sometimes movies rated very highly (for example, the piece of Kannes-Kompetition-Krowned-Korean-Kraap called "Oldboy") can be truly bad. But rarely a movie worth watching is actually rated under 6. This movie, very much worth watching, is. A disgrace.

True, I give it a 10 in protest. The movie is not perfect. Its true rating should be an 8 or a 9. It has some acting flaws (Belafonte especially), the script wanders around, sometimes. However, what we have here is one of the greatest directors of all times, the Czech Jan Kadar, directing two of the greatest actors of all time, the beloved, larger-than-life Zero Mostel and the sublime Ida Kaminska in an acting/poetic/moral tour de force. A pair made in Heaven! It's true that this movie, little flaws apart, does not pander to the average audiences, but those interested in watching an excellent (while, again, not beyond criticism) movie of the incomparable director who gave us "The Shop on the Main Street" (the best movie ever about Holocaust) should not miss this just because some silly IMDb rating system decides that "American Beauty" is better than "The Angel Levine".

It isn't.@@@1 +Spoilers

Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!

In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.

Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?

So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?

I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.

A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor@@@0 I got a good laugh reading all the idiotic comments for this film,

as it's obvious that those people who criticized the movie never seen it, or were stupid enough to pay to see it.

The best reason to watch was on the Elvira show a few years back. Elvira delivered the movie with as many laughs as one can.

It's an ok monster flick, compared to the hundreds of horrendous American flicks made. Way better!!!!@@@1 Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

2.5/10 Bleah@@@0 I was around 7 when I saw this movie first. It wasn't so special then,but a few years later I saw it again and that time it made fun,a lot:)

I think the best parts of the film are: Yeti's body language and the 'special effects ' also.

If you wanna watch this movie ,don't wait for a Hollywood made blockbuster,even this film was made from approx. 1000 dollars :)

I've a copy of it.Movie and video version as well(But I don't think it had been ever shown in cinemas)

Watch it,enjoy it!!!Yeti for ever!!!@@@1 @@ -98,403 +298,3 @@ In the spirit of the classic "The Sting", this movie hits where it truly hurts.. this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.@@@0 I enjoyed this show for two reasons 1. Richard Dean Anderson 2. Amanda Tapping. These two performers carried the show with able support from the regulars and recurring actors. The replacement of RDA in seasons 9-10 was enough to take the heart out of the show.

The chemistry between all the main characters is just tremendous. You get the feeling that the actors like to pal around after the camera stops rolling. This relationship carries over into the program we get to see.

RDA gives his 'O'Neill' character believable personality. He never knows when to give the wiseass in him a rest. You watch the others roll their eyes in dismay at some of his utterances. Still, they know that he is the man to have around when the situation is perilous.

There is a lot going on between 'Carter' and 'O'Neill' under the surface. They manage to keep the lid on, but often just barely. The episode 'Solitudes' in season 1 had some of the best drama ever seen on television. The love between the two made the prospect of dying bearable because they faced it together.

'Carter' and 'Jackson' often have to smooth over some of the turbulence created by 'O'Neill'. Yet 'O'Neill's' tactical instincts always seem sound. He understands what to do without having to think about the matter. The team has several times been placed in jeopardy by the others not listening to his orders.

The quality declined markedly in seasons 9 and 10. The original story arc was mostly used up and the new villains never really caught my interest. Ben Browder was far inferior to RDA in carrying the show. He had his rare moments with Claudia Black, but that was all. Amanda Tapping was phoning in her performances these two seasons. You could see her greatly changed appearance after having a baby. She was probably thinking more about the child than the show.

The spin-off 'Stargate Atlantis' has a few moments, but is mostly a weaker effort. The major characters lack the chemistry of the cast of the original. The villains (Wraiths) are so improbable as to be ludicrous. Maybe Amanda Tapping can breathe some life into the program or it won't last beyond the fourth season.

There has always been a problem for me in the special effects for the show. To have spaceships shaped as pyramids is a design monstrosity seldom equaled in Sci-Fi. The use of torches for illumination in these ships is just as bad. The campy use of decor from ancient Egypt concealing ultra-modern technology is just as hard to accept.

I wondered about some of the continuity on the show too. In the season 2 opener, 'Daniel Jackson' is shot up and his uniform has a gaping hole where he was wounded. He crawls into a sarcophagus and it heals his body and restores his uniform like it just came off the rack in the wardrobe closet. The episode 'Hathor' has a sarcophagus fall into the hands of the SGC, yet it is never mentioned again. This device could have been used in several later episodes on 'Daniel', 'O'Neill', and 'Dr. Frasier'.@@@1 Wow. I do not think I have ever seen a movie with so many great actors that had such a pivotal role so miscast. Justin Timberlake is perhaps the single worst actor to land a bigtime role in a movie with the star power and money behind it that Edison had.

His acting was PAINFUL to observe. The story was OK and all the other characters were played by professional actors, heck, even LL Cool J was fine since he has had numerous small parts to cut his teeth on. How the director and movie company figured that Timberlake was ready for this role there is no way to comprehend.

His character ruins the entire experience since every time he is on screen you are actually rooting for the corrupt cops to cap his sorry ass, and he is supposed to be the hero... I would not waste money on this one at the theater or on video. MAYBE if you have HBO and have NOTHING else to do at 2am on a Saturday night and you are drunk and stoned, this may be OK.

Watching Timberlake in this role was like watching a human 'Kermit the Frog' act in a Hollywood Blockbuster, just didn't work at all.@@@0 -A film destined to be on late-night TV long after the present instant "money-makers" have long been forgotten. Perhaps a little too subtle for today's youngsters, but in time they'll grow into an appreciation of this movie.@@@1 -"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.

Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.

Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...

Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.

No. Really.

This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?

If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.

If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.@@@0 -This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended!@@@1 -This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.@@@0 -Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.

When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.

The patient was in on the con from the beginning.

Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.

There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience.@@@1 -When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.

Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!@@@0 -I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride.@@@1 -When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really… The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.@@@0 -SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.@@@1 -In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")@@@0 -Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance.@@@1 -The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'@@@0 -Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited.@@@1 -So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.@@@0 -This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.@@@1 -I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.@@@0 -"House Of Games" is definitely not without its flaws- plot holes, stiff acting, final scenes- but they do little to detract from the fun of watching a thriller that so methodically messes with your head. "House Of Games" does almost everything a good thriller is supposed to do. Of course, this is not a huge feat given the fact that we're dealing with the the world of confidence men and the cons they perpetrate. So it stands to reason that we never really know what's going on, even though we think that we do. But that's what makes the film worthwhile for those who are game; a film for which repeated viewings are indulgences instead if necessities.

It has a definite Hitchcock slant to it. The film draws on some similar themes found his 1964 effort "Marnie", considered a misfire when released but now regarded as one of the Master's more thought-provoking works. One could easily consider the idea of Lindsay Crouse's character being the same as Tippi Hedrin's...ten year later perhaps. Both are strong-willed loners, both with compulsive behaviors which compel them to walk too close to the shark pool. As Crouse's repressed, up-tight character says, "What's life without adventure?" Put your Reality Check on a low setting and enjoy swimming with the sharks!@@@1 -the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.@@@0 -Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****@@@1 -This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too.

The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).

Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).@@@0 -I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...

I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.

The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.

The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.

After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.

EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.@@@1 -Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.

You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me.

Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".

After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work.

LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script.

Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"

In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.@@@0 -House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.

I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.

Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.

There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....

House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.

In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie.@@@1 -Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.@@@0 -Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***@@@1 -Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.@@@0 -If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.@@@1 -I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.

I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.@@@0 -House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.@@@1 -I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.)

The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).

The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.

This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)

There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.

Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)@@@0 -`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10@@@1 -Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).@@@0 -David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.@@@1 -Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.

I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.

For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10@@@0 -This movie is amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, "Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?" and my humble addition, "May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out."@@@1 -Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.

This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.

Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker)

My Grade: F

Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"@@@0 -This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.@@@1 -This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.@@@0 -I absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :)@@@1 -First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.

I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.

There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.

The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.

Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.@@@0 -WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10.@@@1 -This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.

It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.

Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.@@@0 -I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.

though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!@@@1 -I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.

Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.

However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.

There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.

But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.

The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).

Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.@@@0 -Bruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent "Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the "awarded films" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.

Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the "hey mom - look how funny I am" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.

I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.

The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.

Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!!@@@1 -I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)@@@0 -After a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on "THE DAILY SHOW!"

I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.

My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.

My Grade:

7 out of 10@@@1 -80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.@@@0 -Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.

On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.@@@1 -It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.

Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.

Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.

It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.@@@0 -`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good@@@1 -My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.@@@0 -Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.@@@1 -Nothing happens.

Then characters with no personality don't develop.

Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.

There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing!

There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.

--PolarisDiB@@@0 -Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth.@@@1 -There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.

It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.

The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers.@@@0 -Fairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as "God") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B@@@1 -It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.

I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.

Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette.

With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.

There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.

After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.@@@0 -Well not actually. This movie is very entertaining though. Went and saw it with the girlfriend last night and had to use the "I think there might be something in my eye" routine. The movie is a great combination of comedy and typical romance. Jim Carey is superb as a down on his luck reporter who is given the power to change himself and the city in which he resides. In fact all the characters are great. The movie is not overly funny or sappy, good flick to go see with the wife.

All in All 8/10....note * I am not an easy grader. Thats all from BigV over and out!@@@1 -When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.

This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.

The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.@@@0 -I for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.

Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.

I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.

I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.

I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.

A funny film.@@@1 -Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark.

Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.

That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.@@@0 -I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.@@@1 -I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.@@@0 -I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10!

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief!

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.@@@1 -My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.@@@0 -I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...@@@1 -My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:

1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.

Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.

News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.

DO NOT WATCH@@@0 -A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see.@@@1 -I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.@@@0 -Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.

My rating: 8/10@@@1 -It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).@@@0 -This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10.@@@1 -Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.

All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!

No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.@@@0 -Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10@@@1 -***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.

Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......

David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.

I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.@@@0 -"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.

*** out of ****@@@1 -here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.@@@0 -If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!@@@1 -As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.@@@0 -As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.@@@1 -After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!@@@0 -I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).@@@1 -The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.@@@0 -Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.@@@1 -This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.@@@0 -Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.

If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.

Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.

This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.

On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).@@@1 -"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.

The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained.

Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.@@@0 -I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.

And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.

To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you.@@@1 -I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.@@@0 -Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.

Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.

Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.

Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.

Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.

Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.

Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.

Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.

So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.

Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)@@@1 -Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic?

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 -Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.

Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.

Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.

One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.

Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.

Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.

Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.

The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.

Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.@@@1 -SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.

The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC@@@0 -As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!@@@1 -As an impressionable 10 year old, I liked the "love conquers all" philosophy of the 70s sitcom "Bridget Loves Bernie." I did understand the controversy, which was about the romantic complications between a Jewish cab driver (David Birney) and an Irish Catholic school teacher (Meredith Baxter) and both sets of parents (Harold J. Stone and Bibi Osterwald as Bernie's parents; Audra Lindley and David Doyle as Bridget's parents) who have issues with the young couple's interfaith marriage.

Looking at the show now with years of personal life experiences, I am amazed that the show was even a success for one, albeit, highly-rated season. Created by veteran TV writer Bernard Slade, who a few years after the show's cancellation would write the successful play "Same Time, Next Year", "Bridget Loves Bernie" was a very light, superficial comedy that collapsed under its own airy weight.

There was no denying the real-life chemistry between Birney and Baxter. But, in later years, both actors have shown that they are better actors in other projects (Birney in his short-lived role in "St. Elsewhere" and Baxter in "Family" and "Family Ties"). Here, they were trying to breathe life in a show that needed a much gritter comic edge, which might have given the complications more depth to a very controversial subject.

The show aired Saturday nights between two CBS powerhouses: "All in the Family" and "Mary Tyler Moore". Both of those shows were smart, funny and had enough of an edge (more so on the former that the latter) that kept my interest in the situation and the characters. "Bridget Loves Bernie" was not very smart and only had some occasional chuckles.

This was another example of a show that really was not as good as I remembered.@@@0 -China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.

China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?

If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?

Recommended.@@@1 -This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.@@@0 -This one and "Her Pilgrim Soul" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie "Il Mare" (later remade into "The Lake House". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film.@@@1 -As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.

THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.

The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.

Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.

I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.@@@0 -This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.@@@1 -I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.

Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.

2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.@@@0 -Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.@@@1 -To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.@@@0 -You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.@@@1 -Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.

The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.

I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.

Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.

It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.

Bring back the old format.@@@0 -It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.

Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.

The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.

The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.

One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.

He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.

The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.

The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.

When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.

The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.

From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.

I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.

Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.

And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.

And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE.@@@1 -Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.@@@0 -Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)@@@1 -Unlike many, I don't find the premise or theme of this show the least bit offensive. Its execution, however, is another matter entirely. Like so many B-minus movies, all the decent gags appear to have been spliced into the trailers. For most of the 22-or-so minutes we sit in waning anticipation any morsel of real humor. Or at least something to keep one from fidgeting with the remote or counting carpet fibers. With a couple of exceptions the acting is awful; the comical over-emoting and gesticulating of some cast members might be well suited to a late-night infomercial, but not a primetime sitcom (even a Canadian one.) Notwithstanding the admittedly original cultural angle, I cannot help but think this is mainly a misfired shot by the CBC to replicate the success of Corner Gas. Unfortunately, they got the tone -- and the script -- completely wrong for the prairies. The final insult is that they apparently couldn't even afford to have the location work done in an actual small town (Why? are they so hard to find in Saskatchewan?) Did they think the audience would be fooled by the downtown Regina exteriors? As a proud Canadian I hope this thing goes away soon, and that the rest of the world, primed by the CBC's publicists, quickly forgets this colossal embarrassment of a sitcom.@@@0 -This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there?

The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen.

It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1.

That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.

The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team.

Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!@@@1 -This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.@@@0 -***Possible spoilers***

I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.

Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!@@@1 -I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?@@@0 -Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.

In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.@@@1 -This show is terrible, the jokes are all terrible and just getting worse and worse. I am one of those people who was never a big fan of Corner Gas but at least I liked it at first until it got into a rut around season two, all the jokes had been played out and the characters had nothing to them. Well at least Corner Gas was good at first, Little Mosque on the Prairie is typically awful bland CBC comedy that had nothing going for it from episode 1. Who are the people who are watching this show anyway, I am being honest is it old people or maybe just people who actually live on the prairies? Maybe the jokes are for them and they work there? I don't know a single person who likes this show and can't stand it myself, the jokes are totally predictable and the characters are even less developed than in Corner Gas. Hopefully it won't last much longer because all the success this show has had seems to me to be based entirely on the premise of this show being Muslim which is different and could/should have led to a great show.@@@0 -The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.@@@1 -If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.@@@0 -This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner.@@@1 -I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).

it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.

I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!@@@0 -Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10@@@1 -Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.@@@0 -I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.@@@1 -This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.@@@0 -We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)

This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.

It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold.@@@1 -Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.

Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.

Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.

And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).

And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.

And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.

Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.

Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.@@@0 -Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).@@@1 -This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.@@@0 -The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.@@@1 -I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.

Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.@@@0 -Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.@@@1 -I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(@@@0 -A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.

Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited@@@1 -While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!@@@0 -This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!

The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.

The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!

Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively.@@@1 -Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.@@@0 -Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.@@@1 -God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!@@@0 -Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....

The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.

Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.@@@1 -Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z@@@0 -This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!@@@1 -What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz@@@0 -Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.@@@1 -A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."

3/10@@@0 -The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.

Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.

If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film.@@@1 -Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.

The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.

Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.

3 out of 10 limping killers@@@0 -This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.@@@1 -I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.

No way could I recommend this mess.@@@0 -This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .@@@1 -Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.@@@0 -Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good.

What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.

But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable.

But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!@@@1 -This movie is just plain dumb.

From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.

Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.

Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.

To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.@@@0 -I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.

So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream…" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.

Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls.

So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.

His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all!

RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.

Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.

So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.

There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-—and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.

Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.

------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.@@@1 -How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!@@@0 -Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff@@@1 -I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox@@@0 -Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.@@@1 -This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.@@@0 -A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.@@@1 -I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.@@@0 -Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this.@@@1 -Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.@@@0 -The "Amazing Mr. Williams" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point.@@@1 -The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".@@@0 -Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.

Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.

Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.

As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.

Entertaining if a little on the long side.

One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.@@@1 -Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.@@@0 -The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed.@@@1 -By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.@@@0 -What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.

It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.

Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.

The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best.@@@1 -You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.

The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.

Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.

Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.

The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.

The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!@@@0 -Delightful minor film, juggling comedy and detective, romance and drama genres as nimbly as Lt Kenny Williams (Melvyn Douglas) balances his devotion to his girl Maxine Carroll (Joan Blondell) and his duty to the force as an ace detective.

This hodge-podge may not appeal to all viewers today, but in its day, it had something to offer every member of the movie-going family, and the resolution to the rather tired feeling-versus-duty plot is original and refreshing, and well worth the wait.

"The Amazing Mr. Williams" contains what must be among the most outrageous blind dates in film history, and its bright comic repartee sparkles. Ludicrously frocked, Melvyn Douglas delivers some of the best lines: "I'd walk down Main Street in a Turkish towel before I'd let any woman control my life!" And the effervescent Joan Blondell lets her barbs fly with typical aplomb: "Good grief! You look like my Aunt Nellie!'

The crime-solving here is standard fare, although a fine cast of character actors helps bring the material to life.

From today's vantage point, "The Amazing Mr. Williams" is perhaps most interesting for its insightful commentary on gender as a socially defined construct, all the more malleable for its seemingly rigid boundaries. While much of the gender commentary takes place in a superficial battle of the sexes, at times it is both subtle and penetrating, playing out not only in some of the finer details of the film, but in the battle of genres that reaches its culmination in the final scene.@@@1 -I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character.

Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed.

But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.

I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life.

One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.

It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.

Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.@@@0 -This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.@@@1 -I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.@@@0 -This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking.@@@1 -First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.@@@0 -I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.@@@1 -After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!@@@0 -I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this.@@@1 -We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering.

The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.

Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become…a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).

The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil.

I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.

Score: 0.1/10 (If I could)

Pros:

They got the names right.

Cons:

It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.@@@0 -When the Chamberlain family is camping near Ayers Rock, Australia, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) sees her baby being dragged out of their tent by a dingo and then begins an ordeal that no one should have to experience. For it seems like the dingo story is not believed by the public or the press, and the whole thing turns into a circus. Lindy doesn't help matters either because she won't play to the jury or courtroom, she's only herself, and she's a tough nut to crack, so of course everyone thinks she's guilty because there's a piece of evidence that hasn't come to light. Sam Neill is excellent as Michael Chamberlain, a Seventh-Day adventist pastor, who has doubts about his faith and perhaps about his wife. It's good (or bad) to see that people are just as prejudiced and stupid elsewhere as they are in the States too, because the Australian public doesn't believe the story and the media only fans the flames. Eventually, Lindy is found guilty and sent to prison for a life of hard labor, but years later, a missing piece of evidence shows up and she's freed, but not until after the family's life is basically ruined. A heart-breaking story, very well done, a bit long but well worth seeing. 8 out of 10.@@@1 -This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.@@@0 -Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.

A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.

Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.

This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.

Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.

You will remember this movie for many years.

See it!@@@1 -I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.@@@0 -This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.

The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.

'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real.

Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.@@@1 -I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".

How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.

The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.

A wrinkle in time:*/****@@@0 -A CRY IN THE DARK

A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.

Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.

The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.

While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.

The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.

The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.

The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.

In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.

More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.

... A ...@@@1 -I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.

It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.

There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.

The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.@@@0 -Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.@@@1 -I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen.

As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary!

I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created!

Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed?

I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task!@@@0 -In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.

Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.

Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.

Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.

The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.

Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.

For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."

Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video

Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.

Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.

Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.

Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.

Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.

Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video@@@1 -(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.

@@@0 -I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.

When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.

The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.

Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.

She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...

Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.

This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public.@@@1 -I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!@@@0 -I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.

Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.@@@1 -I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.

A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.

The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.@@@0 -Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B@@@1 -The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.@@@0 -This movie was nominated for best picture but lost out to Casablanca but Paul Lukas beat out Humphrey Bogart for best actor. I don't see why Lucile Watson was nominated for best supporting actor, i just don't think she did a very good job. Bette Davis and Paul Lukas and their three kids are leaving Mexico and coming into the United States in the first scene of the movie. They are going by train to Davis's relatives house. Davis and Lukas were in the underground to stop the Nazis so they are very tired and need rest. But when they arrive home, their is a Nazi living there and their's not much either can do about it. It turns out the Nazi only cares about money and is willing to make a deal with Lukas. Their is more to the plot but you can find that out for yourself.@@@1 -Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.

"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.@@@0 -This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.

One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.

The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.

(Spoiler warning!)

I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.

I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well.@@@1 -I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.

@@@0 -Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10@@@1 -This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.@@@0 -Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.

Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.

This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.@@@1 -Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.@@@0 -Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.@@@1 -I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.@@@0 -Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media.@@@1 -The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.@@@0 -This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.

The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.

I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.

8/10@@@1 -Awful. This thriller should have buried. What a piece of crap. Terrible writing, characters are less than believable. Horrible Schlock!! Stick some B- stars in a terribly written POS to try and give it a little credit, but it fails miserably. If I didn't have to write ten lines about this movie I would have given it a word word review, it starts with 'sh' and ends with 'it'.

Horrible ending, retarded. Who writes this crap. The ending of this film is so contrived, weak it's as if they had no idea what to do with this story line, or they just ran out of money. Most likely due to the number of cameos in this movie. It's a good thing that these actors are on the way out, because this would be a career killer. Good thing for them that hardly anyone will see it. At least no one important, like future investors. It could have ended a thousand different ways, but as it is, I feel cheated out of my precious time.

Don't bother with this one, you will feel like you wasted time you can never get back.@@@0 -An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld."@@@1 -These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.@@@0 -When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.@@@1 -This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them.

The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.

ejames6342@@@0 -Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep.@@@1 -This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".@@@0 -"A Cry in the Dark" is a masterful piece of cinema, haunting, and incredibly though provoking. The true story of Lindy Chamberland, who, in 1980, witnessed a horrific sight, seeing her 3-month-old baby being brutally taken from their family's tent, while camping on the Austrailian outback. Azaria (the baby) was never seen again, and the result of her horrendous disappearance caused a true life frenzy all around the world. Meryl Streep does immaculate justice to the role of Lindy, as she always does. But the one thing that helps "A Cry in the Dark" never fall flat is the brilliant direction. A truly inspired and accurate outlook on this baffeling case, tears are brought to the eyes. The concept is nothing less then terrifying, and afterwards you are left haunted, but also inspired.@@@1 -As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.@@@0 -Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.@@@1 -Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.@@@0 -Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).

The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.

Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).

Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.

Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.@@@1 -I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.@@@0 -This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.@@@1 -Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 -ROLL is a wonderful little film. Toby Malone plays an 18 year old kid (very well acted, by the way) who is into soccer. Malone's cousin takes him out the night before his big game on an adventure with many twists and turns involving two gym bags, a drug lord, some tough bikers, some cops, and some prostitutes ... and the movie keeps us guessing as to which characters are on which side of the law, what the contents of either gym bag is, and even what gender a key biker is. Parts of it reminded me of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING Barrels.

For me, ROLL reinforced three opinions that I already held before seeing ROLL. Those opinions are: 1. I really want to visit Australia one day. The country and cities are beautiful and it looks like such a cool place for a vacation.

2. Some of the best filmmakers in the are Australian. The cinematography in ROLL was especially impressive. I loved the stylized colors and lighting in many of the scenes.

3. Australian women are HOT!@@@1 -I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".

Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.@@@0 -Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.

But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.

Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.

Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.@@@1 -This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.@@@0 -I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.

Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world.

I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.

Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.

One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.

This Rocks 'n' Rolls@@@1 -A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)

@@@0 -A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour.@@@1 -This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10@@@0 -I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10@@@1 -I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.@@@0 -A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.

Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.

Highly recommended.@@@1 -Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."@@@0 -This film is an hour or so of good entertainment and has some genuinely funny moments. I loved the character of Matt, and also Tiny. They seemed the most engaging and funny characters, and certainly the most interesting. Matt is very good (as is his no good cousin), and the police woman and the blonde biker woman provide some welcome eye candy. I must say I saw striking similarities between Matt and another Aussie actor, Eric Bana. My personal favourite part was the brothel scene, loved that. Overall, I liked the film and it'll get about an 8 rating. The penalty however, I was disappointed in. It was a side foot curl, rather than the appropriate laces blast.

I am of course kidding. :)@@@1 -While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.@@@0 -Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10@@@1 -Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.@@@0 -"A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.@@@1 -That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.

First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.

I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...

Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.

What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.

Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.

What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...

In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.@@@0 -in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...@@@1 -I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.@@@0 -The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD.@@@1 -Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.@@@0 -As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.

Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html@@@1 -The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives.

Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster.@@@0 -I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it.

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video?@@@1 -This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?@@@0 -Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.@@@1 -..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.

Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.

Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.

Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.

Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.

Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.@@@0 -It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!!@@@1 -At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.

Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.@@@0 -what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is.@@@1 -This could have been interesting – a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family – but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.

The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department – a giant crab attack is merely silly – as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup!

At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there – eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created – leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster – tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.@@@0 -Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.@@@1 -Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.@@@0 -I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.

It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.

And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.

While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.

And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?

Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!@@@1 -From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.@@@0 -I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA!@@@1 -Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.

The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.

No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.

Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.

Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.

BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.@@@0 -Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.

I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.

I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.

I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.@@@1 -Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.

Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.

What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.

I know I didn't.

Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.@@@0 -Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.

Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).

In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.

Stars: **** (excellent)@@@1 -I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.

************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.

Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.

Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.

I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.

These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.

Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer.

Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?

I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************

But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'@@@0 -It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library!@@@1 -I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.

This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.

B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve.

The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.

(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?

Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those…@@@0 -This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true.@@@1 -I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.

First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.

The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.

Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.

I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.

This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.@@@0 -Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!)@@@1 -Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.@@@0 -A magical journey concocted by Alexander Korda and Michael Powell. These two TITANS of the British cinema have mixed some fabulous ingredients to produce a movie masterpiece! Some of the most ravishing early Technicolor, a SUBLIME and shimmering Miklos Rozsa musical score along with the youthful exuberance of Sabu, the theatrical and malevolent villainy of Conrad Veidt and the exquisite beauty and voice of June Duprez as the princess all work wonderfully well. Miles Malleson who plays Duprez father, the Sultan of Basra, also wrote the perfect screenplay which is appropriately grandiose. DON'T MISS THIS ONE! Since posting the above comments, I have obtained the recently released DVD and can honestly say I'd never seen the picture properly until viewing this DVD version-The clarity and resolution is so precise and the colors are so vivid that I was stunned-This amazing classic can be watched time an again and never fails to charm and delight the viewer. Again, A MUST SEE!@@@1 -With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.@@@0 -A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10.@@@1 -Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.@@@0 -This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.

For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.

The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.

The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!

John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15–year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.

Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable.@@@1 -Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.@@@0 -The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.

According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.

Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.

The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.

The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser.

Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.

The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.@@@1 -Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.@@@0 -Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.

If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.

I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.

Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie.@@@1 -There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?@@@0 -This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. "Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?" Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.

I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys.

It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, "Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it." The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking "some fun, and adventure at last!"@@@1 -One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.@@@0 -I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so.@@@1 -This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.

Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).

This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).

Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.@@@0 -when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D@@@1 -Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another.

The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?

I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.@@@0 -Probably the finest fantasy film ever made. Sumptuous colour, spectacular sets, incredible, spot-on Miklos Rosza musical score that is perfect for each scene and mood. Acting is superb as well in what could have been stiff and pretentious in lesser hands, but here the poetic dialog is deftly, sensitively spoken (the humour is subtle and delightful as well).

Doubtless Spielberg and Lucas were enthralled by this one. Along with "The Four Feathers" (1939), one of the two finest motion pictures released by Alexander Korda and London Films---and one of the finest motion pictures ever made.

A true, compelling classic!@@@1 -Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.

Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.

Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.@@@0 -Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old.@@@1 -Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!

The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.

What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.

But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.

So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.@@@0 -I first saw Thief as a child which makes me almost as old as the Jinn I guess. As any kid would be, I was delighted with the imagination, inventiveness and energy of the film. Several years later, I realized how much of the satire and wit of the script I had missed on that first viewing. I have never passed up an opportunity to watch it throughout the intervening years. In addition to the script, the production transcends the fantasy genre. This is Korda, the storyteller at his very best. When you see Thief as a child you know that you`ve had a great time. When you see Thief as an adult you know that you`ve seen a masterpiece. It`s as timeless as the story it treats. An amazing work.

Thomas McCarthy@@@1 -Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.@@@0 -This is an Oriental fantasy about ¨thousand and one Arabian nights¨ plenty of incredible adventures, fantasy witchery and wizardly. The malignant vizier Jaffar (magnificently played by Conrad Veidt)with powerful magic faculties imprisons the prince Ahamad of Bagdad(attractive John Justin)who loses his throne, then he escapes thanks a little thief named Abu(sympathetic Sabu). They arrive Basora where Ahamad and the princess(gorgeous June Duprez) fall in love. But prince and thief are haunted by Jaffar , Ahamd is turned blind and Abu is become a dog. The story accumulates several fantastic ingredients such as transformation of the starring, a flying mechanic horse, magic bow, flying carpet and of course the colossal genie(overacting performed by Rex Ingram) who gives three wishes to Sabu , the magic eye, the figure of goddess Kali with several hands, among others.

This remarkable picture ranks as one of the finest fantastic films of all time. Produced by London Fim's Alexander Korda and directed by the definitively credited Ludwing Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelan with a stunning screenplay by Lajos Biro and Miles Malleson also dialogs writer and actor as Sultan fond to mechanic games. The WWII outbreak caused the paralyzing shooting, then the three Korda brothers and collaborators traveled USA continuing there the filming in especial on Grand Cannon Colorado.The splendid visual and glimmer Technicolor cinematography , setting and FX provoked the achieving three Oscars : Production design by William Cameron Menzies and Vincent Korda ,Cinematography by George Perinal and Special effects by Osmond Borradaile though today are dated and is urgent a necessary remastering because the colors are worn-out. Furthermore one nomination for the evocative and oriental musical score by Miklos Rozsa. This vivid tale with immense doses of imagination will like to fantasy fans and cinema classic buffs@@@1 -Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.@@@0 -Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.

It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.

Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people.@@@1 -This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.@@@0 -This film, was one of my childhood favorites and I must say that, unlike some other films I liked in that period The Thief of Bagdad has held on to it's quality while I grew up. This is not merely a film to be enjoyed by children, it can be watched and enjoyed by adults as well. The only drawback there is, is that one can not see past the ‘bad' effects (compared to the effects nowadays) like one could when one was a child. I remembered nothing of those effects, of course it had been about ten years since I'd seen this film, when I was about eleven years old. Who then watches effects? One only seeks good stories and entertainment and this is exactly what this film provides. In my mind this film is one of the first great adventure films of the 20th century. Coming to think of it I feel like the Indiana Jones films are quite a like this film. There is comedy, romance and adventure all in one, which creates a wonderful mixture that will capture you from the beginning until the end and although the film is old and the music and style of the films is clearly not modern, it succeeds in not being dusty and old. All of that is mainly due to the great story, the good directing and the good acting performances of the actors. In that department Sabu (as Abu) and Conrad Veidt (as Jaffar) stand out, providing the comedic and the chilling elements of the film for the most part. Great film and although an 'oldie', definitely a ‘goldie'. I hope someone has the brain and guts to release this one on DVD someday.

8 out of 10@@@1 -The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".

This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.

**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago@@@0 -Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.

As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.

Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.

The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.

Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.

The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.

*************************

Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age.@@@1 -Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.

Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids???

Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute.

On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.

I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.

I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.@@@0 -The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over.@@@1 -I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.@@@0 -I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".

It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.

10/10@@@1 -If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.@@@0 --The movie tells the tale of a prince whose life is wonderful, but after an evil wizard tells him to go into town disguised as a beggar the wizard then locks up the prince and soon becomes the shadow ruler of Baghdad. the jailed prince meets a thief called Abu who helps him escape the jail and head to a town called Basra where he meets a princess who he falls madly in love with, but unbeknown to him the evil wizard Jafa is also in love with the princess and tries to convince her father to allow him to marry her. Jafa soon learns that the prince is trying to win the girls heart so he makes him blind and turns Abu into a dog. This leads to the prince and Abu going off on an adventure to find a way to defeat Jafa, restore peace to Baghdad and marry the princess. during their journey they encounter everything from sarcastic Genies that takes Abu on a flight through the clouds, a giant spider that's really hungry, and a flying horse that probably gives birth to one of the most beautiful sequence these old eyes of mine have ever seen.

-This is a pure fantasy movie from start to finish it has flying horses, genies, flying carpets, and wizards that can actually do magic instead of just hit people with their staffs. It doesn't have any cheesy moments and the love story isn't a waste of time. The production designs are just stunning in this movie. From the palaces to the different dangerous traps that the heroes encounter. Even though this movie is over 40 years old, the production design is far better than most of the crap that gets tacked on in today's cinema. The music and songs are also well done. Anyone who sees it will no doubt hail, "I want to be a sailor sailing on the seas" as one of the great musical moments in movies. I'm usually not a huge fan of singing in movies since I find them about as enjoyable as doing my taxes but I'll be more than happy to make an exception for this movie.

-What sells the movie for me is the sheer fact that you get to see things you don't see in everyday life which is also the same reason why I love stuff like "Two Towers" and "Silent Hill". Way before today's modern fantasy movie came along with their realistic CGI to blow our minds there was this movie which blew your mind without having green screen scattered all over the place. One of my favorite shots in "Two Towers" is the one where we see the trolls opening the Black Gates, the main appeal of that shot for me was seeing these great fantasy beings doing what is essentially manual labor, and that's what I love about the Genie and other creatures in the movie. They're just there trying to make a living just like everyone else which gives them a real feel even though they're all just fantasy beings.

-It's literally impossible to watch this movie and not notice where the makers of "Aladdin" got their inspiration. The characters from this movie are pretty much the same characters in that movie from the talkative Genie right down to the flying carpet. It's not an entirely bad thing in my eyes since it's nice to know that I'm not the only one on the planet that has a deep passionate love for this amazing movie. I first saw this as a kid in the motherland and thought it was the greatest thing in the world and upon watching it again last week I still think it's amazing. That's a true testament that a great movie can withstand the test of time. Sure, the effects look a wee bit outdated and cheesy but it was made way back in the 40's so give it a break. Not everything looks outdated though since most of the stuff can still hold its own today when scrutinized under today's standard.

-If you ever wanted to see a live action version of "Aladdin" then you should get your wish with this but the angry cynical bunch will probably do good in avoiding this since this won't be their cup of tea.@@@1 -As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?@@@0 -Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.@@@1 -I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.

This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.

Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.@@@0 -The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.

..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making!@@@1 -This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.

I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.

Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".

In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.

There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.@@@0 -An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time.@@@1 -It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.

I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.@@@0 -The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.@@@1 -this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type

they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,

Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get

as always

jay harris@@@0 -I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!@@@1 -There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!@@@0 -I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as "The Wonder Show of the Century!" Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only "Extras" are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD.@@@1 -This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.@@@0 -Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.@@@1 -2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.

I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.

I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.

This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.

You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.

In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.

Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.

Not that anything else was really working anyway.

The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.@@@0 -Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way.@@@1 -Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.

I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.@@@0 -"The Thief of Bagdad" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!@@@1 -This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.

Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!

Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.

If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.

This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.

IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.

Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.

Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.

Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.

Don't say you weren't warned.@@@0 -The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.

No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.

Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.

Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)

Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."

This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.

"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.

9/10.@@@1 -THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!

This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).@@@0 -I have to agree with MR. Caruso Jr Lanza,s was the finest voice god had to offer if only he could have found the courage to go for broke leave Hollywood and head for the opera he could have been the American Caruso everyone says he could have been but in any case he is a fantastic introduction to the art form no bones about it and if thats the way its gonna be so be it. see the film you'll see why Mr Lanza still come up in discussion even in my house. Someone says Pavarotti i say MARIO LANZA.As for the film itself when will it be on DVD they must have it restored and VHS isn't good enough but this should also be the only Lanza film put on DVD the others are down right bad and boring .@@@1 -Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:

1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.

The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".

If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.

Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...@@@0 -Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.

The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.

Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.

Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.

Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.

The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background.

His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.

Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.

Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.

Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca.

Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely.@@@1 -How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.

Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.

It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...

It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.

It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...

And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.@@@0 -The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.@@@1 -OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.@@@0 -This is a most handsome film. The color photography is beautiful as it shows the lavishness of the Metropolitan Opera House in brilliant color. Other indoor scenes at various mansions, etc are equally brilliant. As for the music, what more can be said other than that Lanza's voice was at its' peak as he sang so many of the worlds' best known and beloved arias. The marvelous Dorothy Kirsten is also a joy as her soprano voice blends with that of Lanza in delightful harmony. Of course, Hollywood took their customary liberties with the life story of Caruso. There is precious little in the story line that relates to actual events. For example, the facts relating to his death are totally fabricated and bear no relationship to the truth. There are some very good web sites that tell the true story of Caruso and contain several pictures of him. These web sites can be located by using any good search engine. There are also several books available concerning his life history. But, the fictional story line does nothing to mar this beautiful film. The voices of Lanza, Kirsten, and the chorus members are the real stars of this movie. Enjoy, I know that I sure did.@@@1 -I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)@@@0 -Mario Lanza, of course, is "The Great Caruso" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.

The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from "Lucia" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.

In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in "Girl of the Golden West," There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.

Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during "L'Elisir d'amore" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen "suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband," that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.

Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film "Match Point" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in "The Great Caruso" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.

Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same.@@@1 -Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend@@@0 -Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!@@@1 -so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.@@@0 -Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso.

But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.

And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth.

To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film.

His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.

When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.

What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.

Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.

Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.

If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso.@@@1 -i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you@@@0 -THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.@@@1 -This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting.

Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me.

This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.@@@0 -I like it because of my recent personal experience. Especially the ideas that everyone is free and that everything is finite. The characters in the firm did not really enjoy their "real" lives, but they did enjoy themselves, i.e. what they were. The movie did a good job making this simple day a good memory. A good memory includes not only romantic feelings about a beautiful stranger and a beautiful European city, but definitely about the deeper discussion about their values of life. Many movies are like this in terms of discussion of the definitions of life or love or relationships or current problems in life or some sort of those. Before Sunrise dealt with it in a nice way, which makes the viewer pause and think and adjust her breath and go on watching the film. Before Sunrise did not try to instill a specific thought into your head. It just encouraged you to think about some issues in daily life and gave you some alternative possibilities. This made the conversations between the characters interesting, not just typical whining complaints or flowing dumb ideas. You would be still thinking about those issues for yourself and curious about the next line of the story. The end was not quite important after all. You could got something out of it and feel something good or positive about yourself after the movie. Movies are supposed to be enjoyable. This is an enjoyable movie and worth of your time to watch it. I am on a journey too. The movie somehow represented some part of me and answered some of my questions.@@@1 -I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.@@@0 -Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, "Before Sunrise" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.@@@1 -Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.@@@0 -Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart.@@@1 -Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.@@@0 -I'm not usually a fan of strictly romantic movies but heard this was good. I was stunned. Easily the most romantic thing I've ever seen in my life. Stunning. Brilliant, sweet, funny and full of heart. The chemistry is flawless as is the writing and directing.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are so natural and sweet together you really think they're a couple.

The movies grabs you right away and doesn't let go. You can't look away nor can you stop listening to them. Even the little moments just melt your heart.

This has jumped into the ranks of one of my favourite ever. A masterpiece.@@@1 -The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.@@@0 -An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.@@@1 -First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.

Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.

Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.

What a sad waste.@@@0 -I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.@@@1 -There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.

That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.

Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.

What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.

Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.

All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.@@@0 -i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa "like dancing about architecture". it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.

10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................@@@1 -I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.

And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!

The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.

1 out of 10.@@@0 -I must admit that at the beginning, I was sort of reticent about watching this movie. I thought it was this stupid, little, romantic film about a French woman who meets in the train an American and decides to visit Vienna with him. I was not actually enchanted about this kind of script, since it continued to make me believe that it is just a movie. Still, I watched it! And I was amazed..."Before Sunrise" is one of the few films who dare to talk in a rather philosophical way, wondering about the fact that in the moment of our birth, we are sentenced to death, or that it is a middling idea that fact that a couple should rest together for eternity, or that, we, humans, can afford sometimes to live in fairy-tales.

The ending was wonderfully chosen (we do not know if they will meet again in six months, at six o'clock, in Vienna's station) -in our optimism, we sincerely hope so. The actors acted in a very good manner, so, that, I began to believe that I, myself could live a love-story just like this.@@@1 -Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.@@@0 -American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.

At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.

Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.

Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.

One of the best romance movies. 9/10@@@1 -The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.@@@0 -the most amazing combination of love and psyche of two young people.presented in the most sublime manner and definitely touches your heart.a rare combination where the sequel surpasses the prequel in both storytelling and intensity of emotions.the movie re affirms your faith in love and pain of separation. the joy of seeing your most beloved is unparalleled and anything can be sacrificed. Ethan and Julie have essayed eternal characters with such simplicity that gives the movie a sheer joy and love to watch. A must see movie for all the people who believe in true love. by far the most romantic(at least one of them) movie of all times.@@@1 -Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.

The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.

The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).

Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.@@@0 -My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.

I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...

On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..

I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful!@@@1 -With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.@@@0 -I managed to catch a late night double feature last night of "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004), and saw both films in a row, without really having the chance to catch my breath in between or ponder on the meaning of each film separately. After sleeping it over, I have to say that I largely prefer the former over the latter, and I shall explain why.

Before Sunrise introduces us with then young actors, Ethan Hawke (Reality Bites, Dead Poets Society), only 25 at the time of the film's release; and Julie Delpy (the Three Colors trilogy), then 26 (although looking much younger). He is a promiscuous American writer, touring Europe after breaking up with his girlfriend; She is a young French student, on her way home to Paris. They meet on the Budapest-Vienna train and spontaneously decide to get off the train together. The two deeply spiritual and intellectual individuals than spend a whole night together walking the beautifully captured streets of Vienna, exchanging ideals and thoughts and gradually falling on love.

The film has 1990's written all over it: back then, technology was leaping rapidly, the new millennium with all it's hopes and dreams was waiting just around the corner, and young adults like the ones depicted in the film were filled with love of life and passion for the future. The characters of Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy), with all their flaws and inconsistencies (Celine's accent, if by mistake or on purpose, was half American-half French, and it swinged from one spectrum to the other, breaking the character's credibility), were a mirror of the time. Watching the naive couple swallow life with such meaning and excitement, acting all clichéd and romantic yet managing to have the audience fall for them as well, is what really made this movie work for me. The fact that the director doesn't let you know if their relationship continues after the film or not makes it all even more worth while.

All in all, Sunrise is a dreamy stroll through the urban landscapes of Vienna, a well told classical romantic rendezvous, and a film I will definitely return to for further insight sometime in the future.@@@1 -The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.@@@0 -This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.@@@1 -Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****@@@0 -After a chance encounter on the train, a young couple spends a single night strolling the streets of Vienna, discussing life and love. The primary reason to see "Before Sunrise," is to watch a young Julie Delpy deliver her lines. As "Celine," this sexy, brainy, soulful brown-eyed blond is sort of a cross between Brigitte Bardot and Joni Mitchell as they were in their mid-twenties. Risking overstatement, Celine is practically the ideal woman, unusually beautiful and very feminine while being natural, unpretentious, introspective, and selflessly loving. We can easily forgive that she is a bit eccentric and talks a blue streak, for her sincere, intelligent remarks are occasionally penetrating. Further, her varied expressions are nothing short of captivating and she speaks English with a French accent that is very endearing.

If there is a fly in the ointment of this good movie, it would have to be her unkempt and disheveled costar. Ethan Hawke as "Jessie" comes off like a vaguely appealing slob, sort of a Maynard G. Krebs of the nineties. Attempting to appear detached and nonchalant, he sort of drags himself through certain shots. His pants fit poorly, his tee shirt is coming untucked, his wavy dark hair (his most attractive feature) needs a good washing, and someone really should have showed him how to properly trim his youthful goatee. Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent an unwashed youth on a two-week train ride around Europe, so the look he has cultivated is probably pretty genuine. His oft-cynical observations and wry sense of humor seem to impress the unapologetically romantic Celine, although she is occasionally disturbed by the extent of his alienation. When he finally admits to her that he is utterly sick of himself and likes being near her because he feels like a different person in her presence, we know he is getting somewhere.

After blowing their collective funds on a series of cafes, bars, and silly diversions, they agree that because they may never see one another again, they should make the most of it. Jesse bums a bottle of red wine off a sentimental bartender so that he and his newfound lady love may repair to a local park in the middle of the night to lie on the grass, looking up at the moon and the stars and watching the sun come up.

Given his boundless luck in the romance department, it is especially irksome when Jessie, as the very definition of a naive jerk, foolishly allows this wonderful young lady to slip from his grasp. He contents himself with a half-baked plan, quickly devised at the railroad station when he bids her adieu, to reunite at the same spot in half a year. When the appointed time comes, you just know this beautiful and unusual girl will be involved with another, perhaps even married and pregnant. For whatever reason, she probably won't show, while Jesse, who ends up working at Target or (if he's lucky) the local library, will go back to Vienna, desperate to see her again, only to wind up alone.

Despite what for me was a very discouraging conclusion, "Before Sunrise" is a beautiful movie. I highly recommend both it and the sequel, "Before Sunset."@@@1 -the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.@@@0 -When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!!@@@1 -I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.@@@0 -Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D@@@1 -What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.

At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.

Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.@@@0 -This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.

The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.

The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.

This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s!@@@1 -Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.

Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.

No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.

I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10@@@0 -Before Sunrise has many remarkable things going on, almost too many to fit into one review like this, but it's suffice to say that it's one of the most observant character studies of the nineties, maybe even in all of contemporary cinema, to be observant not about love, per-say, so much as it's about a human connection. How does one fall in love at first sight? No one does, at least that's deep down the consensus that Linklater wants to show with his film. And *yet* there is the possibility of as intense a connection, of a bond that can form in those that are young and with many ideas that can be expressed articulately and with a breadth of cynicism and is somehow very tender and true at the same time. Linklater here gives us the story of Celine and Jessie, a French girl and an American boy who get off the same train heading to Vienna, and on the way there start to talking about things, at first arbitrary, then personal (Jessie seeing death for the first time in his great grandfather). Jessie persuades Celine to go along with him on a night out on the 'town', in Vienna, until his plane the next morning.

Before Sunrise gives Jessie and Celine, in the midst of the gorgeous Vienna scenery and locales to go on and on about subjects that have a lot of importance, and in a sense is about the act of having conversations, of what it's like to watch people having one leading into another and another. Here it's often about relationships and commitments, as Jessie and Celine tell stories sometimes somewhat inconsequential, or seemingly so, and another that may tell a lot about their essential qualities. We hear confessions of desires for other loves, or what weren't really loves, of being part of a family or part of an upbringing that may or may not inform how you'll love your life, of what it means to believe or not believe in some religious form, or just to have some connection to any faith and the soul (I loved the bit about the quakers in the church), and sometimes laced with cynicism or skepticism. Jessie may be more responsible for that last part, but what's fascinating about the film is that it's never exactly cynical itself, just commenting upon cynicism that lays in the concerns of men and women at that age of their lives.

Meanwhile, it's always great to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in these roles, where they're not incessantly annoying in that 90s Generation-X mode, but are the kinds of people where if not in the central conceit of the film, which isn't a bad one at all but a necessary one, one might think to find walking along the streets of a city somewhere. The conceit is that of an old romantic picture ala Brief Encounter, only here intimacy is expressed in the central characters either between each other, where sweet asides are actually acceptable ("I have to tell you a secret", Jessie says, and then leans in for a kiss, ho-ho), or in the little moments that pop up with other people along the way. I loved the scene with the poet, where it's very cinematic a thing to suddenly find a random romantic bit player in the midst of a romantic picture with such beautiful words at his disposal, or with the palm reader and how the reactions from Jessie and Celine are that we might share, but really are seeing them do it first-hand. All the while Hawke and Delpy embody the roles interestingly- we can see how neuroses are being formed already for their adult lives- as it may lead off into the future...

Featuring splendid cinematography and a script with an ear for natural wit and a true sense of what it means to have a moment of happiness, however self-contained, as it may lead into something more. Who's to say you can't suddenly be attached to someone, if only for less than 24 hours, and be that much more attached than a married couple? This is perhaps Linklater's thesis, but there's more to it than just that. It's a very dense film, and one that will have me calling back to it repeatedly. One scene especially, which is both cheesy and brilliant is when the two of them are talking 'on the phone' in front of each other mimicking their expositions might go to the other's friend. A+@@@1 -I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.

At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more!

Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.

This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.

If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.@@@0 -This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than "Before Sunset", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is "love" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes "Before Sunrise" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch "Before Sunrise" before watching "Before Sunset". If like me, you watched "Sunset" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.@@@1 -All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.@@@0 -Richard Linklater's beautifully directed mixture of youthful romance and Paris travelogue is one of the 90's best thinking person's romantic movies. Julie Delpy turns in one of the decade's most engaging performances as the Parisian lass who spends a day with stranger-on-a-train Ethan Hawke. The dialogue (and there is oodles of it) is sometimes meandering and overly precious, but this portrait of two young wannabe-lovers making a romantic, intellectual, and spiritual connection to one another is full of wonderfully amusing, touching and insightful moments.@@@1 -I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.@@@0 -Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.@@@1 -the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!@@@0 -First let me say that Before Sunrise, like all movies, is NOT a movie for all tastes. It appears some folks are less smart to acknowledge this fact, but it is remarkable to contemplate the kind of outright dislike this small harmless movie generates from some people. For me, like most folks here, Before Sunrise struck a deep chord in me, I was truly stunned, moved, inspired by it. This is a movie that ultimately benefits from more than one viewing. It creates some of the most awesomely unforgettable feelings and emotions you can possibly imagine. It is impossible to imagine this world without ever thinking about the kind of inspirational feelings I got from it.

The movie works as a communion of two fragile souls that are starting to get to know each other. It is very intelligent and inspiring, not so much in how one conversation necessarily ties into the next or the significance of the topics of Jesse and Celine's discussions, but rather the little nuances, the perfectly articulate responses they provoke from each other. It captures an honest, romantic, yet fleeting human emotion that is starting to blossom in the awesomely sublime Viennese milieu; it convinces us that their evanescent relationship might be the greatest compliment in the world. And what happens after that night is open for debate, but I never doubt that they won't each other again.

The facile comments by RockytheBear and the below user are hopeless examples of a doctrinaire dissenter unwilling to accept and respect those who love this movie.

See it and it may change your way of life.@@@1 -This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.

I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.@@@0 -i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie.@@@1 -B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.

"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."

"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."

"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"

Dr Price is the snake expert.

Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.@@@0 -There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.@@@1 -I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.

Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.

To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!@@@0 -If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you.@@@1 -Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.@@@0 -I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT!@@@1 -This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.@@@0 -Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.

To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact.

The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.

Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films.@@@1 -"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze.

It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?

And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them.

And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors?

So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_2.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_2.txt index 9113c7f..3c003eb 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_2.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_2.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -It was by accident that I was scanning the TV channels and found this wonderful film about two beautiful human beings who become attracted to each other in a very innocent and virgin like approach to each other. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) "Tape" '01 and Julie Delpy (Celine) "ER" 94 TV Series (Nicole). This gal and guy, will warm your very heart and soul and make you think deeply into your past relationships and how you really wish you had followed your hearts strings with a guy or gal you deep down loved and lost track of over the years. Jesse and Celine have great conversation, and deep eye contact with a great magnetic explosion between the two of them. I am looking forward to the SEQUEL to this film in 2004 and if you have viewed this film, you will feel the same way.@@@1 -This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.@@@0 -"Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion.@@@1 -I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.@@@0 -I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France@@@1 -I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.

There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.

Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.@@@0 -While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

"Before Sunrise" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose "Before Sunrise" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Antes do Amanhecer" ("Before Sunrise")@@@1 -This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie@@@0 -Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...

Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.

In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.

Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance.@@@1 -when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.@@@0 -This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that.@@@1 -$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.

Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.

Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.

The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.

In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".@@@0 -This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!!@@@1 -I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.@@@0 -Forget the campy 'religious' movies that have monopolized the television/film market... this movie has a real feel to it. While it may be deemed as a movie that has cheap emotional draws, it also has that message of forgiveness, and overall good morals. However, I did not like the lighting in this movie... for a movie dealing with such subject matter, it was too bright. I felt it took away from the overall appeal of the movie, which is almost an unforgivable sin, but the recognizable cast, and their performances counteract this oversight.

Definitely worth seeing... buy the DVD.@@@1 -What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?@@@0 -This movie deals with one of the most feared geriatric diseases among the aging today. As one who has encountered a number of families who are facing the potential of Alzheimer's or who are in the formative stages, I would suggest that every health care giver recommend this movie to any family facing the trauma of this disease. The movie is designed primarily to speak to the family of the patient and reaches into the very heart of the struggle. Casting is excellent and the dramatic portrayal is outstanding with a very commanding plot line.@@@1 -I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.@@@0 -I wasn't expecting to be so impacted by this film portraying a family just like the one you'd expect to be living next door. They are ordinary flesh-and-blood people, not like the typical Hollywood fare. They face an all too common problem--debilitating illness. But the story-line grips the heart with a powerful lesson. Casting, script, direction, and acting flow together with a surge that draws the viewer deep into the story. Give this film your full attention and its message will truly inspire.@@@1 -Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead.@@@0 -Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.@@@1 -Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.

The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.

Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look "hip" to his Sundance buddies and show how "edgy" a filmmaker he is.

Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?@@@0 -This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes@@@1 -The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.@@@0 -A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!

Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.

You don't want to miss this!@@@1 -Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...@@@0 -I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching!@@@1 -What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??

I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.

If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....@@@0 -When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema.

First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.

Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.

Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.

Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?

Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...

A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do

Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live?@@@1 -This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.@@@0 -For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Rånarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliché as the first two thirds of the film.

What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.

One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.

All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10@@@1 -This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.

The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.@@@0 -Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.

Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun.@@@1 -I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...@@@0 -That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.

A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.

The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.

If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film.@@@1 -The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.@@@0 -But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!@@@1 -If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?

The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.

This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.

There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.@@@0 -Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.

Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.

I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of "The Swarm" ? q:)

Long live Monstervision!@@@1 -I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.@@@0 -I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"!@@@1 -Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.

The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.

I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.@@@0 -Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.@@@1 -.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.@@@0 -I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.

Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.

Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.

In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :)@@@1 -What else is left to say?

I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.

Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.

The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."

For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.@@@0 -I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE!@@@1 -Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.

It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.

There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.

The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better.

In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.

@@@0 -Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.@@@1 -I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.@@@0 -I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV@@@1 -I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.@@@0 -I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst.

Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.

Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.

These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together.@@@1 -The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.@@@0 -A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.

This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.

In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy.@@@1 -I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.@@@0 -My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.

I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.

I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.

Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.@@@1 -I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.@@@0 -Walking the tightrope between comedy and drama is one of the toughest acts in cinema. How do you get laughs out of other people's misery and not start feeling bad when it goes on too long?

Well, this surprising little gem of a movie will deliver great big laughs, beautiful scenery, and quite a good buzz as well. I particularly like the concept that a trick of history made alcohol legal since white Europeans liked it, and marijuana illegal, since 'those other races' used it...undoubtedly true and exposes a racial side to the marijuana laws so openly flaunted by populations all over the world.

An extraordinary "DVD Extra" commentary...two of them in fact...run thru the whole movie with both the actors, and then again with the writers. I kept seeing things I was sure were not in the first movie, but then realizing how easy it is to miss much of the subtle comedy on the first take. What a hoot! Don't miss it! 9/10 stars@@@1 -

I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!@@@0 -

This is definitely a 'must see' for those who occasionally smoke a reefer in their secret hide-out, trying to avoid being caught by parents, teachers, the police, etc... The protagonist is a lady in her forties, living in her mansion, breeding orchids, and absolutely unaware of the fact that her so-called rich and truthful husband is actually broke and cheating on her. When he all of the sudden dies, she is confronted with the truth. The bailiff comes by to tell her that she is in a huge debt. She doesn't know what to do, until her gardener tells her about the recent success of marijuana in Britain. She decides after some long thinking to get rid of her flowers and start breeding pot instead... The story is quite original, the performances outstanding! I can think of only a few movies that made me laugh more than this one. Still, the melodramatic touch is present. The film is typical British: the jokes aren't vulgar, there is no violence involved. It shouldn't be mentioned that it is recommended to have taken a few draughts before watching 'Saving grace'. It will be so much more fun! Especially the scene with the 2 old ladies in their tea shop is hilarious. I thought my jawbones would burst. 9/10@@@1 -I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.

I don't recommend this movie.@@@0 -This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10@@@1 -I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "…hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" …and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.

When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.

...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.@@@0 -It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10@@@1 -Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.

I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".

Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.

It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".

It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.

A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.

Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.@@@0 -This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve.@@@1 -It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.

And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.

For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.

But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.

Maka@@@0 -A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, "Saving Grace" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.

Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage.

Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in "Saturday Night Fever" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.

Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in "La Femme Nikita", is memorable.

Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10.@@@1 -The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?

In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.

Jason Vanness@@@0 -I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.

The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.

The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.

It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!)@@@1 -One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.@@@0 -Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.@@@1 -I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.@@@0 -Charming doesn't even begin to describe "Saving Grace;" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).

Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.

The most notable quality about "Saving Grace" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.

The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.

Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for "Saving Grace." It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that "Saving Grace" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.

If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.

See "Saving Grace," especially when you're having a bad day.@@@1 -Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.@@@0 -I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted.

It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.

I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their "tea"!!

Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story!@@@1 -Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****@@@0 -"Saving Grace" is never riotously funny, but it delivers quite a few good laughs and I enjoyed it to a significant degree. Brenda Blethyn is a fine actress, and does a good job at portraying widower Grace, who resorts to growing marijuana to pay off her massive debts. The supporting cast also does a fine job. French actor Tchecky Karyo has a funny little role. The premise alone is appealing. The idea of an over-the-hill woman growing and smoking pot sounds funny enough. And the film plays around with the premise wisely every now and then. Of course, there are flat moments, like one where two elderly women mistaken Grace's marijuana leaves for tea leaves and they start pulling childish antics at the store where they work. That was a mindless gag that didn't quite take off. The film's tone is downbeat and occasionally dull, but I got enough laughs to give this English import a recommendation.

My score: 7 (out of 10)@@@1 -My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 -Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.@@@1 -OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...@@@0 -After her Oscar-nominated turn in "Secrets & Lies", Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great "Saving Grace". And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.

After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.

Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that!@@@1 -Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.@@@0 -This light hearted comedy should be enjoyed for entertainment value. It gets quite hysterically funny at times, but if you haven't spent any time on 'that' side of the tracks you will miss the comedy when it erupts.

The cast of characters meld well together and are quite believable in their roles. How Grace handles meeting her dead husbands girlfriend was well played. She's a true lady. And, my favorite is Grace's white pimp suit that she wears.

I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to laugh out loud, who cheers for the underdog or just wishes to watch something different.@@@1 -I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?@@@0 -For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine.@@@1 -Raising Victor Vargas: A Review

You know, Raising Victor Vargas is like sticking your hands into a big, steaming bowl of oatmeal. It's warm and gooey, but you're not sure if it feels right. Try as I might, no matter how warm and gooey Raising Victor Vargas became I was always aware that something didn't quite feel right. Victor Vargas suffers from a certain overconfidence on the director's part. Apparently, the director thought that the ethnic backdrop of a Latino family on the lower east side, and an idyllic storyline would make the film critic proof. He was right, but it didn't fool me. Raising Victor Vargas is the story about a seventeen-year old boy called, you guessed it, Victor Vargas (Victor Rasuk) who lives his teenage years chasing more skirt than the Rolling Stones could do in all the years they've toured. The movie starts off in `Ugly Fat' Donna's bedroom where Victor is sure to seduce her, but a cry from outside disrupts his plans when his best-friend Harold (Kevin Rivera) comes-a-looking for him. Caught in the attempt by Harold and his sister, Victor Vargas runs off for damage control. Yet even with the embarrassing implication that he's been boffing the homeliest girl in the neighborhood, nothing dissuades young Victor from going off on the hunt for more fresh meat. On a hot, New York City day they make way to the local public swimming pool where Victor's eyes catch a glimpse of the lovely young nymph Judy (Judy Marte), who's not just pretty, but a strong and independent too. The relationship that develops between Victor and Judy becomes the focus of the film. The story also focuses on Victor's family that is comprised of his grandmother or abuelita (Altagracia Guzman), his brother Nino (also played by real life brother to Victor, Silvestre Rasuk) and his sister Vicky (Krystal Rodriguez). The action follows Victor between scenes with Judy and scenes with his family. Victor tries to cope with being an oversexed pimp-daddy, his feelings for Judy and his grandmother's conservative Catholic upbringing.

The problems that arise from Raising Victor Vargas are a few, but glaring errors. Throughout the film you get to know certain characters like Vicky, Nino, Grandma, Judy and even Judy's best friend Melonie. The problem is, we know nothing of Victor Vargas except that he is the biggest gigolo in the neighborhood. We know that he knows how to lick his lips, and comb his fro, and carry himself for the sake of wooing girls into the sack, but that's all. We know that Nino plays piano, and quiet well, you could see it by the awards on the family piano. We know his sister Nicki, is a gossip-loving girl with an invested interest in watching TV. We know that grandma is a hard-working traditional Latina woman who's trying to raise her kids with conservatively in a world of excess corruption. Yet where is the titular character, Victor Vargas? He's in this movie somewhere, but we only know what the movie tells us. This is by far the film's biggest flaw. Victor Vargas isn't so much a character but a ping-pong ball, bouncing between scenes with Judy and his Grandmother, but we never get to know who Victor Vargas really is. This is important because as I've mentioned the only thing we know of Victor Vargas is that he's a sexually active teenager with a libido the size of Manhattan. He's a total Alpha-male. Victor Vargas is not the kind of character I sympathize with at all. Why should anyone? So by the end of the movie, in the aftermath of the climax are we truly led to believe that somehow Victor Vargas has attained ANY depth and learned the errors of his ways? How could such a two-dimensional character have any depth? If only the director had worried a little more about fleshing out his main character instead of worrying about getting that perfect hand-held shot.

Raising Victor Vargas brings to life the world of the Latino inner-city neighborhood to the big screen. Something that few films have done before in the past. The film has been complimented for feeling so real, and I won't

argue with that. I haven't seen this level of reality since CBS aired Survivor. Seriously, although the movie has some nice shots of the city, the writer/director Peter Sollett was way too dependent on close-ups and hand-held shots. This problem is particularly noticed in indoor scenes that are so claustrophobic I was forced to perform deep-breathing exercises to keep from passing out. As the film continues, the shots get tighter and tighter with faces cropped from brow to chin on the screen; you can practically smell Victor Vargas's cheap cologne. The overall effect is unrealistic in contrast. The indoor scenes of inner-city apartments make them look small and cramp, which is not true. I've been in those type apartments; I used to live in one. They're not splendorous but they have high ceilings and they're decent living spaces. By the movie's standards you'd think that these apartments were 5x5 cells of brick-and-mortar, chipped paint and cracked walls. Unfortunately, Sollett's constant use of close-ups and one particularly bad shot with a zoom-in on one scene come off as totally amateurish. But Raising Victor Vargas is only Sollett's second film, and his most well known, a solid effort in filmmaking that will hopefully get better as he continues to make films. One review I read summarized the movie as, `Ethnicity for Ethnicity's Sake,' and I cannot agree more. If Victor Vargas were truly a great film and story, then the characters' applicability wouldn't matter whether they were Latino, Chinese, etc. Yet if you were to take this story and stick it in middle-class suburbia with a bunch of teeny-bopper white kids the results wouldn't be such glowing reviews, and we'd see the film's flaws more clearly. Indeed, some other aspects of the use of Latinos in this film bother me. While some aspects of Victor Vargas are accurate others I have to question. For example, Victor, Nino and Vicky all share the same room to sleep. This set off an alarm for me because it seemed contrary to what I believe. Any self-respecting Latino family wouldn't have two older brothers sharing the same room with a thirteen-year old girl. At first I was unsure, perhaps I was wrong, but after speaking with my grandmother I knew my problem with this was justified. Considering how conservative the grandmother is, you'd think that Vicky would have been sleeping in her room.

As a Latino who grew up in a somewhat conservative Cuban household, raised by my grandmother while my mother was working full-time, I could relate to the movie in many ways, which is why my critical viewpoints are bittersweet because I really wanted to love this movie. Unfortunately, my lack of respect for Victor Vargas sabotaged my feelings for the film. Maybe it's because Victor Vargas reminds me of those guys who were getting laid while I was playing with my Sega Genesis when I was seventeen. Maybe it's because without any further introspection by the film, Victor Vargas is merely a stereotypical hot-blooded Latino, who'll just end up shouting to girls from his car, `Hey bay-bee, ju want to get into my luv Mah-Cheen?' Either way I don't like him, so ultimately how can I like a film about him? So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stick my hands into a bowl of grits.

@@@0 -Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.

Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure.@@@1 -I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?@@@0 -A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed.@@@1 -If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!@@@0 -I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie!@@@1 -I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...@@@0 -This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic.@@@1 -A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10@@@0 -Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special "business", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.

I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.

Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it.@@@1 -On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.@@@0 -Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.@@@1 -I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.

But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.

It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.

I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.@@@0 -Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time.@@@1 -Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!

Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.

Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!@@@0 -I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.@@@1 -So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.

This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.

Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.

I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!@@@0 -It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.@@@1 -I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.

The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.

That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.@@@0 -Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.@@@1 -OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!@@@0 -Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.@@@1 -This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang.

The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical.

Disappointing: Sinatra

Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary.

Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice"

Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)

Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.@@@0 -This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.@@@1 -En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).@@@0 -Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.@@@1 -I never was an avid viewer of "Crocodile Hunter", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.

A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers!

Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from "Crocodile Hunter" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical "Crocodile Hunter" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.

Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, "The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in "Crocodile Hunter" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes!@@@0 -Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.

The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.

I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.@@@1 -Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.

Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup – there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.

On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say "They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness"? (what credibility? - Ed note.)

The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.

John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.

The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the "fourth wall" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well…). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters – but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush – anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles.

While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office.

Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints…

So enjoy this diversion for what it is – a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved – interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)@@@0 -one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!@@@1 -The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.

It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.

The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.

Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.

4/10@@@0 -When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!@@@1 -I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..

Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!@@@0 -Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A@@@1 -I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...@@@0 -Yes, that's right, it is. I firmly believe that the N64 and the weird looking controller were both designed just so this game could be made. It was amazing the first time I saw it, with its huge environments and colorful characters, and its amazing now. The play control is perfect, the graphics are beautiful, and it has that Nintendo charm that is always so intangible but undeniably there. A must have for any N64 owner, and a reason to get an N64 for everyone else.@@@1 -If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.

It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.

No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.

The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.

Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!@@@0 -Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10@@@1 -When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it".

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong.@@@0 -This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!@@@1 -OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!@@@0 -Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.@@@1 -I thought that the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.

And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.

P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT@@@0 -I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10@@@1 -Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.@@@0 -This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.@@@1 -Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store …

This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.@@@0 -This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.@@@1 -oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...

one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....

and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...

and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...

these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...

rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...@@@0 -"Emma Woodhouse" Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Duets) has nothing to do with herself but painting, going with her friends on her chariot up and down, saying hello to people in town, and trying to match make everybody she knows. I guess there were no movies, no television in those days, and the girls had nothing to do but gossip. I wish she had read a little more. I like Gwyneth, and think that she is a lovely young woman. She is talented, and in "Emma" one has the privilege to hear Gwyneth sing. I am looking forward to seeing "Duets", where she is suppose to sing. She is brave to speak British English with all those native Britons, including Emma Thompson's sister, "Miss Bates" Sophie Thompson (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dancing at Lughnasa). "Mrs. Elton" Juliet Stevenson (Truly, Madly Deeply) was considered one of the most promising actors in 1991. Gwyneth is part of the American movie royalty, being none other than the daughter of director Bruce Paltrow (St. Elsewhere) and Tony Award Winner Blythe Danner (The Myth of Fingerprints). She will hopefully be around for a real long time. Lucky us! I liked Emma and also recommend it. It is one of those old stories that are still accurate those days. Favorite scenes: Emma singing and playing the piano. I specially like it when she sings a duet. Favorite Quotes: Mr. Knightley": Emma, you didn't ask me to contribute a riddle." Emma: "Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified." Miss Bates: "It left us speechless, quite speechless I tell you, and we have not stopped talking of it since."@@@1 -Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.@@@0 -First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!

@@@1 -I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.@@@0 -If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious.@@@1 -This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".@@@0 -Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.@@@1 -The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.

The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.

The characters were wooden and one dimensional.

The ending made no sense.

Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.

Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'

The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.

If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...@@@0 -A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well.@@@1 -Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.

Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.

This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:

-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot

Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.

Give the demonic ..... 0/10.@@@0 -"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers………).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10@@@1 -Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.@@@0 -Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.@@@1 -From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it!

But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.@@@0 -Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.@@@1 -Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!@@@0 -I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one!@@@1 -I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!@@@0 -This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience.@@@1 -Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.@@@0 -I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie.@@@1 -Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.@@@0 -Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

@@@1 -This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.@@@0 -This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.@@@1 -This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.@@@0 -Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary@@@1 -For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.

One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.

* out of ***** (1 out of 5)@@@0 -Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!

Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).

Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!

Highly recommended.@@@1 -I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.@@@0 -I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma).@@@1 -The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.@@@0 -Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.



@@@1 -Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".

Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.

15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.

*1/2 out of ****@@@0 -This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!@@@1 -I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.@@@0 -I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.@@@1 -I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.@@@0 -By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR@@@1 -1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.@@@0 -A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10@@@1 -*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****

The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.

The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.

This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.

All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.

The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.

The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women?

Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.

Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.

Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,

What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.

For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:

1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.

2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.@@@0 -What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!@@@1 -Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****@@@0 -I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy?@@@1 -This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.@@@0 -Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen.@@@1 -Madison is not too bad-—if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971@@@0 -I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch.@@@1 -This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?

As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".

As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.@@@0 -Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography… The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali.@@@1 -Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.@@@0 -the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten@@@1 -

According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!

1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.

20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.

The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.@@@0 -Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".@@@1 -William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.

One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.

Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.@@@0 -This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.

Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.

All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this!@@@1 -Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)@@@0 -I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour.@@@1 -The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!

This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.

Not recommended unless you're desperate.@@@0 -This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie.@@@1 -People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.@@@0 -Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl!@@@1 -Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.

Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.

If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".@@@0 -I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do.@@@1 -Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the "First Power": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.

This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately "The First Power" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.

The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.

Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:

4/10@@@0 -I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10!@@@1 -I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...

1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.

2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.

3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.

4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.

5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.

6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.

7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.

And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.

4/10@@@0 -Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.@@@1 -Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.@@@0 -A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.@@@1 -The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.

But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.

Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?

By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.@@@0 -Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".@@@1 -When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.

"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.

Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.

"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!@@@0 -Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.

It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.

If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.

However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.

Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself!@@@1 -An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.@@@0 -I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed.@@@1 -

I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.

I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.

I dont recommend it, period.

@@@0 -I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.@@@1 -I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.@@@0 -Director Vincenzo Natali first showed his penchant for character-based sci-fi flicks with his 1997 short film "Elevated", wherein 3 people remain trapped in an elevator while unseen monsters roam the building. His follow-up feature project "Cube", released later that year, had a very similar premise, this time with 6 people and instead of an elevator it was a vast expansion of interlocking cubic deathtraps. Both were admirable attempts to take the sci-fi genre a step further, by deliberately declining to show almost any visual stimulation, choosing instead to spend as much time as possible focusing on the human element, how the characters act, react and interact under incomprehensible and dangerous conditions. After his exploration into the mainstream with 2002's "Cypher", Natali has come back to his bizarre character-film trend to bring us "Nothing", his latest, and by far most optimistic and comedic take on the wide cinematic world of "What If?"

Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) are life-long friends, brought together by a mutual detachment from society and a lack of any one else to be with. Dave, who has always been hindered by a selfish and somewhat dimwitted nature, lives rent-free with Andrew at his ill-located and ill-constructed house, where he often takes advantage of Andrew's neurotic and antisocial mentality. Despite all this, the two misfits are happy together, until one day their deep character flaws, coupled with some astronomically bad luck, land them in the middle of some pretty serious, jail-sentence-worthy trouble. On top of this, they discover that their house has been deemed unfit for existence and is scheduled to be demolished before sunset, so in the hazy, nightmarish panic of everything going wrong for them, they wish that the whole world would just disappear. And it does.

Going any further with the synopsis would compromise a lot of the film's slow (occasionally too slow) reveal about what's happened to Dave and Andrew, and how they deal with their new reality. Natali's fascination with studying human behavior under duress (ala The Birds) is here in spades, but simply by making the main characters friends rather than strangers, he's able to break away from the thriller-horror element of this premise to open it up to a more comfortable and optimistic level. It's almost as if he's made the aphoristic opposite of "Cube".

Of course, the film is not 85 minutes of laughter and sunshine. In keeping with fundamental realism, our two anti-heroes' dynamic often becomes antagonistic, sometimes with rather nasty results. Like the "Desert Island" game, the film looks at how even best friends, when left alone together, can fall apart, but at the same time it shows that friends are vital to the quality of existence. In a very twisted, sci-fi way, this is a feel-good flick, with good heart and good intentions.

However, there are a few qualms to be had with "Nothing". While the two lead actors, Hewlett and Miller, do well with their parts, their characters are not nearly as interesting as they should have been, considering it is completely up to them to entertain us for the better part of an hour. There is some development in the relationship and personalities of Dave and Andrew, some background is given, but ultimately not enough. A generous viewer will sit through the less-engaging portions of the film to see it through to the end, but cynics will probably give up pretty fast.

Acting, as mentioned, is adequate, and considering the amount of 'green-screen' work that would've been needed, reasonably convincing. David Hewlett and Andrew Miller, who both wrote co-wrote the screenplay, have been long-time friends of Vincenzo Natali: Hewlett has in fact featured in every film Natali has made. Perhaps it was their creative input that steered this film in a more positive direction. Nonetheless, the story could have been a lot more involving. Granted, it is relatively entertaining considering that (no pun intended) nothing really happens, but you get the impression that, in more experienced hands, a lot more could've been done with this premise.

In all fairness, "Nothing" is an impressive piece of work in many ways. The concept is interesting, the direction is inventive, the script works on a human level and, most of all, it shows a progression in Natali's creative mentality. For fans of his work, this will be a delight, and for others it will be a nice way to pass a little unwanted time. It's just a shame that the director's fixation on human drama prevented it from being the great, fun film it could have been.@@@1 -Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.@@@0 -I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)@@@1 -Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.@@@0 -If you want mindless action, hot chicks and a post-apocalyptic view of Seattle, then this is the show for you!

The concept of Dark Angel isn't anything new (in fact, there's controversy over whether James Cameron stole the idea from a book), but I spend the entire hour watching it every Tuesday from start to finish.

Jessica Alba is smoking and Max' friends (original Cindy, Kendra) are just as hot.

The fight scenes are getting better, but the dialogues between Original Cindy and Max need to be a little bit better (the slang sounds forced and it sounds like someone living in the suburbs wrote it).

In my opinion, Dark Angel is a great guilty pleasure filled with everything an action fan could ask for, but if you're looking for hard hitting, award-winning drama, go watch "The West Wing" or something.@@@1 -Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....@@@1 -After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10@@@0 -Sitting, Typing… Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything… disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.@@@1 -Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).@@@0 -Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****@@@1 -This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?

Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.@@@0 -... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...@@@1 -I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this@@@0 -NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)@@@1 -An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.

My grade: D-

DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment@@@0 -The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...

Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.

The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.

Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.

Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.

Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.

One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...

However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.

Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?

"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.

Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.

What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.

Final rating: 7.5 / 10@@@1 -First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...@@@0 -I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.@@@1 -This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.@@@0 -Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame!@@@1 -It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.@@@0 -

Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.

@@@1 -I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!@@@0 -I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!@@@1 -'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.

Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').

'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'—all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.

This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.@@@0 -all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen.@@@1 -*Spoiler warning*

First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.

The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone.

She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps.

Her friends are unbelievably nasty.

The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?

A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?@@@0 -Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10@@@1 -A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.

There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)@@@0 -089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number "Shanghai Lil," which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway…this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the "Shanghai Lil" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933).@@@1 -I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either.@@@0 -Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.@@@1 -This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.@@@0 -Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache.@@@1 -Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?@@@0 -The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see.@@@1 -The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.@@@0 -In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.

All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.

Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it.@@@1 -You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.@@@0 -Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.@@@1 -While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.@@@0 -A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated.@@@1 -I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.@@@0 -I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.

I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.

Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.

Thanks so much.@@@1 -Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.

As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.

I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.

Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.

In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.@@@0 -Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.

The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.

This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be.@@@1 -I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.@@@0 -How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?@@@1 -Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.

When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.

The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.

The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.

This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.@@@0 -It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line.

And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done.

Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty.

And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not.

First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs.

Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious.

And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes.

That's entertainment, folks. It's great!

Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.@@@1 -Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!@@@0 -James Cagney is best known for his tough characters- and gangster roles but he has also played quite a lot 'soft' characters in his career. This musical is one of them and it was the first but not the last musical movie Cagney would star in.

Cagney is even doing a bit of singing in this one and also quite an amount of dancing. And it needs to be said that he was not bad at it. He plays the role with a lot of confidence. He apparently had some dancing jobs in his early life before his acting career started to take off big time, so it actually isn't a weird thing that he also took on some musical acting roles in his career. He obviously also feels at ease in this totally different genre than most people are accustomed to seeing him in.

The movie is directed by Lloyd Bacon, who was perhaps among the best and most successful director within the genre. His earliest '30's musicals pretty much defined the musical genre and he also was responsible for genre movies such as "42nd Street". His musicals were always light and fun to watch and more comedy like than anything else really. '30's musicals never were really about its singing, this was something that more featured in '40's and later made musicals, mainly from the MGM studios.

As usual it has a light and simple story, set in the musical world, that of course is also predictable and progresses in a formulaic way. It nevertheless is a fun and simple story that also simply makes this an entertaining movies to watch. So do the characters and actors that are portraying them. Sort of weird though that that the total plot line of the movie gets sort of abandoned toward the end of the movie, when the movie only starts to consists out of musical number routines.

The musical moments toward the ending of the movie are also amusing and well done, even though I'm not a too big fan of the genre itself. Once again the musical numbers also feature a young Billy Barty. he often played little boys/babies/mice and whatever more early on in his career, including the movie musical "Gold Diggers of 1933", of one year earlier.

A recommendable early genre movie.

8/10@@@1 -my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob@@@0 -I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.@@@1 -***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.@@@0 -An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!!@@@1 -I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.@@@0 -This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is.@@@1 -With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.@@@0 -Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride!@@@1 -Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.@@@0 -When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s.@@@1 -I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.

Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.@@@0 -Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.

The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.

I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and...@@@1 -Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.@@@0 -"Footlight Parade" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. "42nd Street" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.

While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.

While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.

It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.

7 out of 10@@@1 -Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.@@@0 -The energetic young producer of theatrical prologues (those staged performances, usually musical, that often proceeded the movie in the larger cinemas in bygone days) must deal with crooked competition, fraudulent partners, unfaithful lovers & amateur talent to realize his dream of making his mark on the FOOTLIGHT PARADE.

While closely resembling other Warner's musical spectaculars, notably the GOLDDIGGER films, this movie had a special attraction none of the others had: Jimmy Cagney. He is a wonder, loose-jointed and lithe, as agile as any tomcat - a creature he actually mimics a few times during the movie. Cagney grabs the viewers attention & never lets go, powering the rapid-fire dialogue and corny plot with his charisma & buoyant charm.

The rest of the cast gives their best, as well. Joan Blondell is perfect as the smart-mouthed, big-hearted blonde secretary, infatuated with Cagney (major quibble - why wasn't she given a musical number?). Dick Powell & Ruby Keeler once again play lovers onstage & off; the fact that her singing & acting abilities are a bit on the lean side are compensated for by her dancing ; Powell still exudes boyish enthusiasm in his unaccustomed position as second male lead.

Guy Kibbee & Hugh Herbert are lots of fun as brothers-in-law, both scheming to cheat Cagney in different ways. Ruth Donnelly scores as Kibbee's wealthy wife, a woman devoted to her handsome protégés. Frank McHugh's harried choreographer is an apt foil for Cagney's wit. Herman Bing is hilarious in his one tiny scene as a music arranger. Mavens will spot little Billy Barty, Jimmy Conlin & maybe even John Garfield during the musical numbers.

Finally, there's Busby Berkeley, choreographer nonpareil. His terpsichorean confections, sprinkled throughout the decade of the 1930's, were a supreme example of the cinematic escapism that Depression audiences wanted to enjoy. The big joke about Berkeley's creations, of course, was that they were meant, as part of the plot, to be stage productions. But no theater could ever hold these products of the master's imagination. They are perfect illustrations of the type of entertainment only made possible by the movie camera.

Berkeley's musical offerings generally took one of two different approaches, either a story (often rather bizarre) told with song & dance; or else stunning geometrically designed numbers, eye candy, featuring plentiful chorus girls, overhead camerawork & a romantic tune. In a spasm of outré extravagance, FOOTLIGHT PARADE climaxes with three Berkeley masterworks: `Honeymoon Hotel' and its pre-Production Code telling of a couple's wedding night; `By A Waterfall' - dozens of unclad females, splashing, floating & diving in perfect patterns & designs (peer closely & you'll see how the synchronous effects were achieved); and finally, `Shanghai Lil' - a fitting tribute to the talents of both Cagney & Berkeley.@@@1 -According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!@@@0 -I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.@@@1 -I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.

So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well.@@@0 -This fabulous movie must be viewed knowing that millions scraped together 10 cents to see it and forget the gloomy day-to-day economic conditions during the 30's. Remember, 10 cents bought a loaf of bread back then, so this was a minor luxury for many people. It's testimony to how Hollywood did its best to make the USA feel a little better about itself. You'll note that with the studio system in Hollywood at the time many of the actors and actresses were type-cast in similar movies, e.g. James Cagney, William Powell, Ruby Keeler, Frank McHugh, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee . Then too, branches of the U.S. military were always respected with enthusiasm and patriotism as in the use of military precision marching by the great choreographer, Busby Berkeley, at the end.@@@1 -I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.

I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.

This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.

I took the DVD back to the store the same day!@@@0 -An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.

The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be.

In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."

Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.

Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color.

Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen.@@@1 -There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.@@@0 -It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In "Yankee Doodle Dandy" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially "Shanghai Lil." And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch.@@@1 -At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.@@@0 -The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.

In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.

Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.

Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch.

Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil.

Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.

Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.

Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best.@@@1 -I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.@@@0 -"Footlight Parade" is fascinating on so many levels. There is no way the supposedly staged "theater prologues" could have been produced in any theater on earth, of course. Think of the huge pools and three-story tall fountains for "By A Waterfall," for instance. (Berkeley directed John Garfield in "They Made Me a Criminal" six years later and had the Dead End Kids singing "By a Waterfall" as they took their showers.)

"Shanghai Lil" is the best production number in the picture. It's a catalog of '30s Warner Bros. sensibilities. Note the African guys mixed into the scene with white and Asian prostitutes. You would never see blacks integrated into a social scene in other films of the period unless they were porters on a train or maids in a big house. Here the black guys are sitting at the bar and singing with the others. I also get a thrill when the military dancers do a "card section" presentation of Roosevelt's image. There's also the NRA eagle--the logo of the controversial National Recovery Administration of the New Deal. FDR was the new president and hopes were so high that he'd pull the nation out of the Depression. You'd never see something so working class oriented coming out of MGM, of course. Warner Bros. wholeheartedly supported the uplift dictated by the F.D.R. administration.

Dear little Miss Ruby Keeler was never better than she is playing the Chinese hooker, "Lil." She hardly even watches her feet as she dances, which was one of her signature flaws.

The Pre-Code stuff is fun. The "By a Waterfall" number is wonderful in that regard. The girls change into their bathing suits on the crowded bus speeding through Times Square with all its lights on. The spread-eagle girls swimming over the camera provide the kind of crotch shots that would not be seen for 35 years. In a few months the Production Code would eliminate such naughty pleasures.@@@1 -The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!

The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.@@@0 -Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.

Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.

Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.

The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.

Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.@@@1 -Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.

Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.

It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.@@@0 -A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.@@@1 -This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.@@@0 -This movie is not schlock, despite the lo fi production and its link to Troma productions. A dark fable for adults. Exploitation is a theme of Sugar Cookies, and one wonders if the cast has not fallen prey to said theme. A weird movie with enticing visuals: shadows and contrast are prominent. Definitely worth a look, especially from fans of Warhol and stylish decadence. Through all the cruelty and wickedness, a moral, albeit twisted, can be gleamed.@@@1 -There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.

Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.

aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.

this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.

anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.@@@0 -Starting off, here's a synopsis: Porno queen Alta Lee (Lynn Lowry) is murdered by her pornographer lover Max (George Shannon) in a game of sexual Russian roulette. Alta's other lover, icy lesbian casting agent Camila Stone (Mary Woronov), provides an alibi for Max. But Camila has an agenda of her own, and a plan involving the seduction of innocent actress Julie (Lynn again) in a web of sexual mind games. When the lookalikes' identities are sufficiently blurred, the stage is set for vengeance as passionate as the most heated carnal encounter.

Though this movie is quite obscure and never got much attention, I find it to be a sexy, suspenseful gem. Cult goddess Woronov has one of her best-ever roles, and she and sexy-innocent Lowry play off each other well. The unsettling music provided by Gershon Kingsley, plus two original songs ("All-American Boy," "You Say You've Never Let Me Down") and the Jaynetts' "Sally, Go 'Round the Roses" compose a memorable soundtrack. Theodore Gershuny's direction is sharp, with everything photographed in muted earth tones that perfectly suggest unsavory business bubbling under society's upper crust. With tons of great New York atmosphere, Ondine (Woronov's friend and fellow Warholite) giving a great performance in a small role, and exotic Monique Van Vooren as Max's ex-wife in a comic sub-plot. This sub-plot, though amusing, looks like it belongs in another movie altogether. However, I'm not complaining, as the film is smooth even as it changes gears and is a hell of a lot more interesting that the erotic-thriller garbage currently being cranked out.

Trivia: Sugar Cookies was originally rated X (soft-core) and released by General Film Corporation in 1973. I am the proud owner of an original one-sheet poster--lucky me! In 1977, the movie was cut for an R and re-released by Troma Team, which now offers it uncut on videotape. Mary Woronov was the wife of Theodore Gershuny at the time, and was reportedly uncomfortable performing the graphic lesbian simulated sex scenes with him leering behind the camera. She can also be seen in two of his earlier productions, Kemek (1970) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972).@@@1 -This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.@@@0 -I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.

I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.

Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV.@@@1 -Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return.

This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.@@@0 -this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today.@@@1 -No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.

Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.

@@@0 -This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.

The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!

Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!

Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD!@@@1 -This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!@@@0 -There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing@@@1 -We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell.

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.@@@0 -Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.@@@1 -I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.@@@0 -My cable TV has what's called the Arts channel, which is a "catch-as-catch-can" situation sometimes, sometimes films, sometimes short clips of films or ballets, and I came into this just as the bar scene came on, where they tear up their coupons. Excellent, exquisite, Ealing wins again, my wartime-Glasgow-raised mother would love this, should I ever find a copy of it. Some of Britain's best artists, from Mr Holloway to Wayne and Radford and the delicious Miss Rutherford, having a wonderful time gently sticking it to the Home Office. Loved the last scene, where as soon as they are "back in England!" the temperature plummets and it rains...@@@1 -The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.@@@0 -Passport to Pimlico is a real treat for all fans of British cinema. Not only is it an enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining comedy, but it is a cinematic flashback to a bygone age, with attitudes and scenarios sadly now only a memory in British life.

Stanley Holloway plays Pimlico resident Arthur Pemberton, who after the accidental detonation of an unexploded bomb, discovers a wealth of medieval treasure belonging to the 14th Century Duke of Burgundy that has been buried deep underneath their little suburban street these last 600 years.

Accompanying the treasure is an ancient legal decree signed by King Edward IV of England (which has never been officially rescinded) to state that that particular London street had been declared Burgandian soil, which means that in the eyes of international law, Pemberton and the other local residents are no longer British subjects but natives of Burgundy and their tiny street an independent country in it's own right and a law unto itself.

This sets the war-battered and impoverished residents up in good stead as they believe themselves to be outside of English law and jurisdiction, so in an act of drunken defiance they burn their ration books, destroy and ignore their clothing coupons, flagrantly disregard British licencing laws etc, declaring themselves fully independent from Britain.

However, what then happens is ever spiv, black marketeer and dishonest crook follows suit and crosses the 'border' into Burgundy as a refuge from the law and post-war restrictions to sell their dodgy goods, and half of London's consumers follow them in order to dodge the ration, making their quiet happy little haven, a den of thieves and a rather crowded one at that.

Appealing to Whitehall for assistance, they are told that due to developments this is "now a matter of foreign policy, which His Majesty's Government is reluctant to become involved" which leaves the residents high and dry. They do however declare the area a legal frontier and as such set up a fully equipped customs office at the end of the road, mainly to monitor smuggling than to ensure any safety for the residents of Pimlico.

Eventually the border is closed altogether starting a major siege, with the Bugundian residents slowly running out of water and food, but never the less fighting on in true British style. As one Bugundian resident quotes, "we're English and we always were English, and it's just because we are English, we are fighting so hard to be Bugundians"

A sentiment that is soon echoed throughout the capital as when the rest of London learn of the poor Bugundians plight they all feel compelled to chip in and help them, by throwing food and supplies over the barbed wire blockades.

Will Whitehall, who has fought off so may invaders throughout the centuries finally be brought to it's knees by this new batch of foreigners, especially as these ones are English!!!!

Great tale, and great fun throughout. Not to be missed.@@@1 -I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!@@@0 -My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called "Thatcher's Britain", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to "The Ladykillers" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially "Passport to Pimlico".

Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico "declaring itself independent" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.

Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the "Burgundians", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.

Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in "The Man in the White Suit" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", or as part of a larger community as happens in "Whisky Galore" or "The Titfield Thunderbolt". The central theme of "Passport" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the "spivs" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a "rules for rules' sake" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.

I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is "We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.

Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.

There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10@@@1 -I'm sorry for Jean, after having such a good original movie to be followed up by perhaps his worst movie in is career. This movie was shot down terribly by horrible acting jobs by Goldbeg(Romeo) and whatever that computers name was. Also, some scenes may have been just a little unnesicary. Truly, bad movie.@@@0 -Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.

Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.

But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before.@@@1 -Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.

I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.

Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.

1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.

Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?

John Ulmer@@@0 -I commend pictures that try something different. Many films just seem like re-treads of old ideas, so that is the big reason I so strongly recommend Passport to Pimlico.

The movie is set just after WW2 and the post-war shortages and rationing seem to be driving Londoners "barmy". The film centers on a tiny neighborhood in London called Pimlico. They, too, are sick of not being able to buy what they want but can see no way out of it. That is until they accidentally stumble upon a hidden treasure and a charter which officially named this neighborhood as a sovereign nation many hundreds of years ago! With this document, they reason, they can bypass all the rationing and coupons and live life just as they want, since it turns out they really AREN'T British subjects! Where the movie goes from there and how the crisis is ultimately resolved is something you'll need to see for yourselves. Leave it up the brilliant minds of Ealing Studios to come up with this gem!@@@1 -This movie was absolutly awful. I can't think of one thing good about it. The plot holes were so huge you could drive a Hummer through them. The acting was soo stuningly bad that even Jean Claude should be ashamed, and that is saying alot!!! And dialogue, What dialogue???To think that I was a fan of the first one (I use that comment loosely, its more like a guilty pleasure, than anything else). This movie had Goldberg in it for crying out loud!!!! Nothing good can come of this movie. What makes this film even worse is that it is soo bad you can't even watch it with a bunch of friends to make fun of!!! This has got to be in my top five worst movies of all time. 2/10 because it is soo hard for me to give a 1.@@@0 -Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10.@@@1 -this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.@@@0 -SPOILERS Many different comedy series nowadays have at one point or another experimented with the idea of obscure independence. In an early episode of cartoon "Family Guy" the Griffin family find their home is an independent nation to the United States of America and the story progresses from there. Way back in 1949 however, the Ealing Studios produced a wonderful little film along the same idea.

After a child's prank, the residents of Pimlico discover a small fortune in treasure. At the inquest it becomes clear that the small area is a small outcrop of the long lost state of Burgundy. Withdrawing from London and the rest of Great Britain, the residents of the small street experience the joys and the problems with being an independent state.

Based at a time when rationing was still in operation, this story is brilliantly told and equally inspiring. Featuring performances by Stanley Holloway, Betty Warren, Philip Stainton and a young Charles Hawtrey, the film is well stocked with some of the finest actors of their generation. These actors are well aided as well by a superb little script with some cracking lines. Feeling remarkably fresh, despite being over 50 years old, the story never feels awkward and always keeps the audience entertained.

Ealing Studios was one of the finest exporters of British film ever in existence. With films like "Passport to Pimlico" it's not difficult to see why. Amusing from start to finish, the story is always fun and always worth watching.@@@1 -** HERE BE SPOILERS **

The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme).

This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.

So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...

2/10@@@0 -I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether.@@@1 -I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.

It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.

If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.@@@0 -Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.@@@1 -There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

@@@0 -This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well.@@@1 -I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.

Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.

Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.@@@0 -This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.

The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.

Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.

Welcome to Burgundy!@@@1 -This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.@@@0 -I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it@@@1 -This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.

The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.

Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.@@@0 -I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).

So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.

And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer.@@@1 -I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.

Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.

What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.

Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.@@@0 -Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies?@@@1 -This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.

* out of 4(Bad)@@@0 -This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.@@@1 -This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.

Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.@@@0 -I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.@@@1 -After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.

We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo!

Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel.

From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!@@@0 -Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.@@@1 -Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies.

In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following).

Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".

Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film.

After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).

You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.

So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!@@@0 -This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look.@@@1 -I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.@@@0 -I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of "A Good Baby."

Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.

This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly.@@@1 -OK I saw this movie to get a benchmark for bad but with this movie it's Unisol's best movie now plot Luc Devereux is now a technical expert who is working with the government with his partner Maggie, who's been through countless hours of training and combat with him, to refine and perfect the UniSol program in an effort to make a new, stronger breed of soldier that is more sophisticated, intelligent, and agile. All of the new Unisols, which are faster and stronger than their predecessors, are connected through an artificially intelligent computer system called SETH, a Self-Evolving Thought Helix. When SETH discovers that the Universal Soldier program is scheduled to be shut down because of budget cuts, he takes matters into his own "hands" to protect himself. Killing those who try to shut off his power, and unleashing his platoon of super-soldiers, led by the musclebound Romeo, SETH spares Deveraux, only because Deveraux has the secret code that is needed to deactivate a built-in program that will shut SETH down in a matter of hours. With the help of a hacker named Squid, SETH takes human form. Not only must Luc contend with ambitious reporter Erin, who won't leave his side, but Luc also must contend with General Radford, who wants to take extreme measures to stop SETH. SETH has also kidnapped Luc's injured 13-year-old daughter Hillary, and is now holding her hostage. Luc is the only person who can rescue Hillary, because Luc knows firsthand how a UniSol thinks, feels, and fights. now there are problems like in any movie like did anyone find it weird how a reporter just-so-happened to be there and The soldiers can take being flattened with a truck however when Vanne Damme shoots them with a gun with one bullet and they die and the final fight scene was unbelievable when Luc is now human and Seth is 5x stronger and faster than any other Unisol and Luc can take a hit from him. with the final fight when Luc smashes him to pieces I was really surprised that the pieces didn't melt and reform him (Terminator 2). another thing that bugs me is how the hell does Vanne Damme get good actors to play relatives I mean in the case of Vanne Damme it's completely off the grid of how Science Fiction this movie is. The Music Score now that must have a mention have you ever listened to a song where you'd rather cut a blackboard with a knife well Universal Soldier 2 is like that. The good points are there's no Dolph (HOORAY) and unlike the 1st one there is only one naked scene whereas in the 1st one there are many (I'm still haunted by the scenes in #1) also the actors in this have some talent whereas in the first one the casting guys were sadists (if you don't believe me look it up)@@@0 -Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.@@@1 -OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.@@@0 -A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing.@@@1 -The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.

Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.

Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.

The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.

I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.@@@0 -What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental.@@@1 -Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?@@@0 -It's cheesy, it's creepy, it's gross, but that's what makes it so much fun. It's got over the top melodramatic moments that are just plain laughable. This movie is great to make fun of. Rent it for a good laugh.

The film centers around three women newscasters, during a time way before cellphones. They go to a small town to cover a festival, but they can't get a room to stay the night. And that's when they meet Ernest Keller. He's creepy in a Psycho kind of way. And he offers to let them stay at his home. But he doesn't tell them the truth about who lives there.

Stephen Furst's performance is so amazing as "The Unseen", that he really carries this film. Most of the movie is kind of dull, although finding out the truth of Ernest's family is kind of interesting.

Just seeing this cast in these scenes makes it worth a look. Barbara Bach and Doug Barr make nice eye candy.

I consider the movie an old gem, hard to find and worth a look.@@@1 -Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.

It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road

Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie

PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter@@@0 -This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ("Carrie" and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining!@@@1 -The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!

To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.@@@0 -Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles.@@@1 -This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.@@@0 -The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10.@@@1 -Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.@@@0 -It's true that Danny Steinmann's "The Unseen" is a simplistic horror thriller with a very predictable plot, no particular attempts for twists or surprises whatsoever and featuring literally every single cliché the genre has brought forward over the decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. On the contrary, my friends and I were pleasantly surprised by this obscure but nevertheless intense little 80's shock- feature that mainly benefices from a handful of brutal images and a downright brilliant casting. The beautiful and ambitious reporter Jennifer Fast and two of her equally attractive friends travel to a little Californian town to shoot a documentary on the anniversary festival, but their hotel forgot to register their booking. In their search for a place to stay, the trio runs into the exaggeratedly friendly but suspicious museum curator Ernest Keller who invites the girls to stay at his remote countryside mansion. One by one the girls experience that Keller and his extremely introvert and submissive sister Victoria hide a dark and murderous secret inside their house. "The Unseen" can easily be described as a cheap and ultimately perverse amalgamation of the horror classics "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The plot is a series of familiar themes that became notorious and endlessly imitated due to these two films, like twisted family secrets in the cellar, voyeurism, crazed inbred killers and a very unappetizing treatment of chickens. Still, I don't consider these to be negative remarks, as "The Unseen" is a completely unpretentious and modestly unsettling thriller that clearly never intended to be the greatest horror classic of the decade. Although the denouement of the plot is pretty clear quite fast, director Steinmann attempts to maintain the mystery by keeping the evil present in the house "unseen" like the title promised. The casting choices and acting performances are truly what lift this sleeper above the level of mediocre. Sydney Lassick, immortalized since his role as the overly anxious psychiatric patient Charley Cheswick in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is truly the ideal choice for the role of Ernest Keller. His persistent friendliness and almost naturally perverted appearance are exactly what the character needed. Also Stephen Furst, who eventually turns from the unseen into the seen, gives away a tremendous performance as "Junior". He looks and acts like an authentic handicapped man and his attempts to get close to Jennifer in the basement are genuinely unnerving. "The Unseen" is a slow and predictable but nevertheless potent early 80's film that will certainly appeal to fans of 70's exploitation and generally weird stuff.@@@1 -Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.@@@0 -Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10@@@1 -Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.@@@0 -Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by … "The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway … Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it – where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which … under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor … The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille … attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.

I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection.@@@1 -The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.

The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.

The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.

The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.@@@0 -Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of "The Spy Who Loved Me" fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in "Animal House"), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out.@@@1 -...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!@@@0 -all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched@@@1 -In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.

@@@0 -Upon the first viewing, I found this tale to be at least less annoying than other Cannon Movie Tales. After many more, I think it's one of the best. Some of the songs are pretty bad, especially the love song, but two things stand out that make the movie, even the singing, worthwhile. One is the art direction. Like the other Cannon Movie Tales, this is a beautifully decorated period piece; every piece of cloth and jewel (both of which have major parts in this movie's plot) look fresh and new, and contrast with the plain clothes of the peasants. Even during the love song I find myself studying the dress and hair of the princess, wonderfully done. The other thing is the comic timing. A lot of the movie is cheesy, but the emperor's vanity (and his making fun of himself in the end), the suspicious guard, the guard chasing Nicholas, and the stupid prince, were all quite funny and seem to be ridiculous quite on purpose. And the sequence during the song Weave-O makes up for the songs that weren't so good.@@@1 -In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.@@@0 -Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!@@@1 -I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.

Very improbable orphanage on Bala.

Cushing and Lee at their height.

Some nice scenery.

Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".

Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.

Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.

Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.@@@0 -"Hatred of a Minute" is a hauntingly beautiful film. A psychological thriller that takes you on a journey through the nightmare that is the life of a serial killer, Eric Seaver. Strong performances and excellent cinematography make this film a "must see" for any film student or horror fan. The realness of the story and the human side of Eric separate this film from other psycho killer movies. Some shout outs to the film's producer, Bruce Campbell as well as to the film "The Evil Dead" add some humor for anyone that knows the genre.@@@1 -I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.@@@0 -Michael Kallio gives a strong and convincing performance as Eric Seaver, a troubled young man who was horribly mistreated as a little boy by his monstrous, abusive, alcoholic stepfather Barry (a genuinely frightening portrayal by Gunnar Hansen). Eric has a compassionate fiancé (sweetly played by the lovely Tracee Newberry) and a job transcribing autopsy reports at a local morgue. Haunted by his bleak past, egged on by the bald, beaming Jack the demon (a truly creepy Michael Robert Brandon), and sent over the edge by the recent death of his mother, Eric goes off the deep end and embarks on a brutal killing spree. Capably directed by Kallio (who also wrote the tight, astute script), with uniformly fine acting by a sound no-name cast (Jeff Steiger is especially good as Eric's wannabe helpful guardian angel Michael), rather rough, but overall polished cinematography by George Lieber, believable true-to-life characters, jolting outbursts of raw, shocking and unflinchingly ferocious violence, a moody, spooky score by Dan Kolton, an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, grungy Detroit, Michigan locations, a grimly serious tone, and a taut, gripping narrative that stays on a steady track throughout, this extremely potent and gritty psychological horror thriller makes for often absorbing and disturbing viewing. A real sleeper.@@@1 -"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married?

Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.@@@0 -I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.@@@1 -In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).@@@0 -"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.@@@1 -I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".@@@0 -This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.@@@1 -this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.

seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened@@@0 -So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out.@@@1 -I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.

I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.

Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.@@@0 -despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.

It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now

honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development

i was glad i watched it@@@1 -This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.@@@0 -Michigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, "Hatred of a Minute" has all the draw of mainstream hits like "Silence of the Lambs" and of cult classics like "Army of Darkness." The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out "Hatred of a Minute."@@@1 -The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.

That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.

I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.@@@0 -I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.@@@1 -Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.@@@0 -I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.@@@1 -When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.

And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.

But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.@@@0 -This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.@@@1 -The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.

This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.

I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.

Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."

First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.@@@0 -This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.

THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.

I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!

@@@1 -There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?@@@0 -This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned.@@@1 -I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.@@@0 -In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.

Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!@@@1 -Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.@@@0 -I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.@@@1 -There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.@@@0 -This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.

I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.

The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.

I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.@@@1 -I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.

To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.

S@@@0 -Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.@@@1 -I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.@@@0 -When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you.@@@1 -Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.@@@0 -Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **@@@1 -Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

0 out of 4.@@@0 -This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.@@@1 -The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...@@@0 -This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 -From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.

William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.@@@0 -this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.@@@1 -Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.

Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.@@@0 -I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

@@@1 -Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...

etc etc etc....

Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.

As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.@@@0 -There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.@@@1 -Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!@@@0 -The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.

Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.

The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.@@@1 -Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.

'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.

I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked.@@@0 -Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.

In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.

It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.

The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!@@@1 -I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.

Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.

Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10@@@0 -This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.

Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.

By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.

These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.@@@1 -Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.

*1/2 (of four)@@@0 -I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.@@@1 -The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.@@@0 -What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.@@@1 -The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.

First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.

Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.

Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.

The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.

And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.@@@0 -What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.@@@1 -Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).

Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.

Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.

When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.

Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie!

While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.

Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...@@@0 -i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow!@@@1 -be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.

The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.

Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.

This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.@@@0 -I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!@@@1 -This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it@@@0 -Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.@@@1 -Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.@@@0 -I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.

The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)

The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.@@@1 -You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.

As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination.

Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.

Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!

@@@0 -I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.@@@1 -One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.@@@0 -The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.@@@1 -Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.@@@0 -It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.@@@1 -This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.@@@0 -What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?@@@1 -What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie.@@@0 -Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.

Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.

It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).@@@1 -I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better.

The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.

THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without.

To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.@@@0 -The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui@@@1 -On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.

I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.

Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:

1. Harris Jeyaraj

2. Harris Jeyaraj

3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it.

4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.

5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.

6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.

7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.

8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.

9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!

10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.@@@0 -"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!@@@1 -Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").

Thx@@@0 -Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series.@@@1 -Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.@@@0 -I found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award?@@@1 -I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..

come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.

technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.

kamal at his best is the best in tollywood@@@0 -Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.@@@1 -It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).

BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic).

*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley@@@0 -Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.

Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.

There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.

Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.

@@@1 -I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?@@@0 -Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??.

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!@@@1 -The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.@@@0 -Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know!@@@1 -A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".@@@0 -As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical@@@1 -About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!@@@0 -When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.

Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.

Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.

Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.

Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.

In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.

To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.

During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.@@@1 -I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.@@@0 -I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.@@@1 -Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!@@@0 -As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.@@@1 -This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.@@@0 -This movie will always be a Broadway and Movie classic, as long as there are still people who sing, dance, and act.@@@1 -An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.

The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.

And indeed, it does.@@@0 -This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...@@@1 -I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.

The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.

I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.

There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.

The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.

The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience.@@@0 -This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.@@@1 -Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.

I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.

The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.

The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.@@@0 -I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...@@@1 -MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.@@@0 -Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.

This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through.

This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.@@@1 -It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.

This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.@@@0 -hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one@@@1 -This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.@@@0 -I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 -This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.@@@0 -I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly.@@@1 -You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).@@@0 +A film destined to be on late-night TV long after the present instant "money-makers" have long been forgotten. Perhaps a little too subtle for today's youngsters, but in time they'll grow into an appreciation of this movie.@@@1 +"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.

Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.

Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...

Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.

No. Really.

This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?

If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.

If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.@@@0 +This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended!@@@1 +This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.@@@0 +Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.

When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.

The patient was in on the con from the beginning.

Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.

There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience.@@@1 +When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.

Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!@@@0 +I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride.@@@1 +When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really… The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.@@@0 +SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.@@@1 +In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")@@@0 +Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance.@@@1 +The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'@@@0 +Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited.@@@1 +So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.@@@0 +This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.@@@1 +I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.@@@0 +"House Of Games" is definitely not without its flaws- plot holes, stiff acting, final scenes- but they do little to detract from the fun of watching a thriller that so methodically messes with your head. "House Of Games" does almost everything a good thriller is supposed to do. Of course, this is not a huge feat given the fact that we're dealing with the the world of confidence men and the cons they perpetrate. So it stands to reason that we never really know what's going on, even though we think that we do. But that's what makes the film worthwhile for those who are game; a film for which repeated viewings are indulgences instead if necessities.

It has a definite Hitchcock slant to it. The film draws on some similar themes found his 1964 effort "Marnie", considered a misfire when released but now regarded as one of the Master's more thought-provoking works. One could easily consider the idea of Lindsay Crouse's character being the same as Tippi Hedrin's...ten year later perhaps. Both are strong-willed loners, both with compulsive behaviors which compel them to walk too close to the shark pool. As Crouse's repressed, up-tight character says, "What's life without adventure?" Put your Reality Check on a low setting and enjoy swimming with the sharks!@@@1 +the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.@@@0 +Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.

*** out of ****@@@1 +This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too.

The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).

Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).@@@0 +I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...

I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.

The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.

The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.

After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.

EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.@@@1 +Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.

You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to "suspend disbelief"; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me.

Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an "F".

After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work.

LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script.

Meanwhile, the audience goes: "What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?"

In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.@@@0 +House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.

I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.

Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.

There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....

House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.

In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie.@@@1 +Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.@@@0 +Here's my first David Mamet directed film. Fitting, since it was his first, as well.

The story here is uneven and it moves along like any con movie, from the little cons to the big cons to the all-encompassing con. It's like "The Grifters," but without that film's level of acting. (In that film, John Cusack was sort of bland but that was the nature of his character.) The acting here is very flat (I sometimes wondered if the bland acting by Crouse was supposed to be some sort of attack on psychoanalysis). At least in the beginning. It never gets really good, but it evolves beyond painfully stiff line reading after about ten minutes. Early in the film, some of Lindsay Crouse's lines -- the way she reads them -- sound as if they're inner monologue or narration, which they aren't. With the arrival of Mantegna things pick up.

The dialogue here isn't as fun as it should be. I was expecting crackerjack ring-a-ding-ding lines that roll off the tongue, but these ones don't. It all sounds very read, rather than spoken. Maybe Mamet evolved after this film and loosened up, but if not, then maybe he should let others direct his words. He's far too precious with them here and as a result, they lose their rhythmic, jazzy quality. What's more strange is that other than this, the film doesn't look or feel like a play. The camera is very cinematic. My only problem with "Glengarry Glen Ross" was that it looked too much like filmed theatre, but in that film the actors were not only accomplished, but relaxed and free. Everything flowed.

I wouldn't mind so much if it sounded like movie characters speaking movie lines -- or even play characters speaking play lines -- but here it sounds like movie (or even book) characters speaking play lines. It's a weird jumble of theatre and film that just doesn't work. That doesn't mean the movie is bad -- it isn't, it's often extremely entertaining. The best chunk is in the middle.

It's standard con movie stuff: the new guy (in this case, girl) Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) gets involved in the seedy con underworld. How she gets involved is: she's a psychiatrist and one of her patients, Billy is a compulsive gambler. She wants to help him out with his gambling debt, so she walks into The House of Games, a dingy game room where con men work in a back room. I'll admit the setup is pretty improbable. (Were they just expecting Crouse to come in? Were they expecting she'd write a cheque? Was Billy in on it? One of these questions is definitely answered by the end, however.)

And from here the cons are start to roll out. I found the beginning ones -- the little learner ones -- to be the most fun. We're getting a lesson in the art of the con as much as Crouse is.

We see the ending coming, and then we didn't see the second ending coming, and then the real ending I didn't see coming but maybe you did. The ball just keeps bouncing back and forth and by the last scene in the movie we realize that the second Crouse walked into The House of Games she found her true calling.

I'm going to forgive the annoying opening, the improbable bits and the strange line-reading because there are many good things here. If the first part of the movie seems stagy, stick with it. After the half-hour mark it does really get a momentum going. If you want a fun con movie, then here she is. If you want Mamet, go watch "Glengarry Glen Ross" again -- James Foley did him better.

***@@@1 +Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.@@@0 +If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.

"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.

The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).

"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.@@@1 +I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.

I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.@@@0 +House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.

On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.

However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.

There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.

As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.

I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.@@@1 +I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.)

The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).

The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.

This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)

There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.

Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)@@@0 +`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10@@@1 +Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).@@@0 +David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.@@@1 +Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.

I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.

For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10@@@0 +This movie is amazing! While being funny and entertaining, it is also profoundly deep and eye-opening. I will watch it again and again. Bruce is a guy who is unhappy with his life. He has a job and a life, but it isn't what he thinks it will take to bring him happiness. Bruce is bitter, unsatisfied, and resentful that his life isn't the way he envisions it should be. As a result of this state of mind, Bruce ends up losing his job and blaming God for everything that he thinks is wrong with his life. God comes to Bruce and grants him Godly powers. Bruce uses these powers to get everything he has always wanted. His life is finally exactly what he envisioned it would take to make him happy.....with one exception. In the process of gaining everything, he loses the one person who truly loved him. As the movie unfolds, Bruce learns that the real change that needed to occur in his life was not the circumstances, but his perception of what was truly there. This movie was inspirational and deep. If you really pay attention, it forces you to look at your life with a deeply humbling respect for the fact that a lot of the time we are so much more blessed than we recognize. As my wife says, "Since when does anybody know what it takes to make them happy?" and my humble addition, "May we not lose ourselves and those who matter while we try to find out."@@@1 +Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.

This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.

Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker)

My Grade: F

Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"@@@0 +This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.@@@1 +This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.@@@0 +I absolutely loved this movie. It met all expectations and went beyond that. I loved the humor and the way the movie wasn't just randomly silly. It also had a message. Jim Carrey makes me happy. :)@@@1 +First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.

I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.

There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.

The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.

Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.@@@0 +WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10.@@@1 +This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.

It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.

Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.@@@0 +I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.

though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!@@@1 +I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.

Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.

However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.

There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.

But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.

The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).

Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent "Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the "awarded films" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.

Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the "hey mom - look how funny I am" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.

I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.

The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.

Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!!@@@1 +I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)@@@0 +After a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on "THE DAILY SHOW!"

I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.

My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.

My Grade:

7 out of 10@@@1 +80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.@@@0 +Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.

On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.@@@1 +It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.

Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.

Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.

It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.@@@0 +`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good@@@1 +My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.@@@0 +Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.@@@1 +Nothing happens.

Then characters with no personality don't develop.

Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.

There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing!

There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.

--PolarisDiB@@@0 +Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth.@@@1 +There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.

It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.

The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers.@@@0 +Fairly funny Jim Carrey vehicle that has him as a News reporter who temporarily gets the power of God and wrecks havoc. Carrey is back in familiar ground here and looks to be having a good time, and Jennifer Aniston as his put upon girlfriend is also charming and affecting. The story is predictible to the extreme but the cast (including Morgan Freeman as "God") is great and makes the film worth catching. GRADE: B@@@1 +It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.

I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.

Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette.

With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.

There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.

After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.@@@0 +Well not actually. This movie is very entertaining though. Went and saw it with the girlfriend last night and had to use the "I think there might be something in my eye" routine. The movie is a great combination of comedy and typical romance. Jim Carey is superb as a down on his luck reporter who is given the power to change himself and the city in which he resides. In fact all the characters are great. The movie is not overly funny or sappy, good flick to go see with the wife.

All in All 8/10....note * I am not an easy grader. Thats all from BigV over and out!@@@1 +When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.

This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.

The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.@@@0 +I for one was glad to see Jim Carrey in a film where being over the top wasn't the goal. His character is like all of us. Wanting more - better things to happen to us and expecting God to deliver.

Morgan Freeman made a great God. With a sense of humor and a genuine sense of love for each of us yet ready to take a little vacation when the opportunity presents itself.

I thought Jennifer Aniston's character was a little too vulnerable and understanding towards Carry's basically self-centered TV anchorman wanna-be but that's the way it was written.

I think the previews ruined several potentially very funny scenes because everyone who saw them knew what was coming before it happened.

I have read a number of the reviews and it seems some people are looking a little too deep. This is a summer comedy and is not meant to solve the problems of the world although there are a few messages we could all take to heart.

A funny film.@@@1 +Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark.

Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.

That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.@@@0 +I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.@@@1 +I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.@@@0 +I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10!

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief!

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.@@@1 +My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.@@@0 +I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...@@@1 +My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:

1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.

Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.

News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.

DO NOT WATCH@@@0 +A very funny movie. It was good to see Jim Carrey back in top form. It was definitely worth the price of admission. Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston both played outstanding supporting roles in this film. I think they may have played the dog a bit too much however, still a good film to see.@@@1 +I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.

My rating: 8/10@@@1 +It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).@@@0 +This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10.@@@1 +Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.

All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!

No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.@@@0 +Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10@@@1 +***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.

Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......

David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.

I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.@@@0 +"Bruce Almighty" looks and sounds incredibly stupid, especially from the trailers. Nevertheless, I found in it a deeper message that actually made me like this film more. Bruce (Jim Carrey) is angry at God and is given divine powers by him to be God for a week to see if he can do a better job. Morgan Freeman plays a man symbolized here as God, and though it isn't his usual type of film or one of his best roles, he does excellent with what he is given to work with. Although crude at times, the film does have quite a few laughs, from Bruce parting his soup in half like the Red Sea and the customers' reactions to him, as well as Freeman's seemingly laid-back and wisecracking image of God. It is overly exaggerated at times, and there is some crude humor, but overall it manages to be somewhat funny. There is a decent supporting cast, such as Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Ann Walter, and Steve Carrell, which always helps. The end of the film proves to be very romantic and tear-jerking, and the message is clear, that we should do what God has called us to do and "be the miracle." The film is far from perfect, but still enjoyable, and far better than I and many people probably would have expected, especially if we see the deeper message of the film.

*** out of ****@@@1 +here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.@@@0 +If you want a serious laugh pain, watch this movie, and the things Bruce inflicts on his fellow newscaster. The deleted scenes are priceless. I don't know why they didn't include them in the original movie. It can't be because of time, since the movie is only 101 minutes long. Morgan Freeman is a brilliant actor, who has been overlooked for too long. Jim Carrey needs meds!@@@1 +As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.@@@0 +As someone who lives near Buffalo, New York, this movie scored points with me before I even saw it, since the story is based here. There are even some bit parts with real-life news-TV anchor people from Buffalo..and, for once, it doesn't knock the area. Hallelujah!

Theology-wise, puh-leeze!!! God is still made to look and think like humans...and, of course, be a bit on the liberal side. Being the lightweight comedy it is, it's nothing that should win any awards but it still is entertaining and is a pleasant way to kill 102 minutes.

There are some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy scenes and, hopefully, audiences - from Christians to atheists.- got something out of this besides a few laughs, such as what prayer should really be all about. Kudos to the writers for at least getting that theology correct and giving a good message.

Overall, it's a good-hearted film that should offend very few.@@@1 +After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!@@@0 +I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).@@@1 +The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.@@@0 +Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.@@@1 +This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.@@@0 +Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.

If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.

Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.

This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.

On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).@@@1 +"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.

The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained.

Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.@@@0 +I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.

And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.

To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you.@@@1 +I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.@@@0 +Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.

Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.

Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.

Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.

Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.

Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.

Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.

Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.

So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.

Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)@@@1 +Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic?

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 +Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.

Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.

Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.

One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.

Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.

Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.

Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.

The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.

Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.@@@1 +SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.

The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC@@@0 +As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!@@@1 +As an impressionable 10 year old, I liked the "love conquers all" philosophy of the 70s sitcom "Bridget Loves Bernie." I did understand the controversy, which was about the romantic complications between a Jewish cab driver (David Birney) and an Irish Catholic school teacher (Meredith Baxter) and both sets of parents (Harold J. Stone and Bibi Osterwald as Bernie's parents; Audra Lindley and David Doyle as Bridget's parents) who have issues with the young couple's interfaith marriage.

Looking at the show now with years of personal life experiences, I am amazed that the show was even a success for one, albeit, highly-rated season. Created by veteran TV writer Bernard Slade, who a few years after the show's cancellation would write the successful play "Same Time, Next Year", "Bridget Loves Bernie" was a very light, superficial comedy that collapsed under its own airy weight.

There was no denying the real-life chemistry between Birney and Baxter. But, in later years, both actors have shown that they are better actors in other projects (Birney in his short-lived role in "St. Elsewhere" and Baxter in "Family" and "Family Ties"). Here, they were trying to breathe life in a show that needed a much gritter comic edge, which might have given the complications more depth to a very controversial subject.

The show aired Saturday nights between two CBS powerhouses: "All in the Family" and "Mary Tyler Moore". Both of those shows were smart, funny and had enough of an edge (more so on the former that the latter) that kept my interest in the situation and the characters. "Bridget Loves Bernie" was not very smart and only had some occasional chuckles.

This was another example of a show that really was not as good as I remembered.@@@0 +China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.

China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?

If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?

Recommended.@@@1 +This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.@@@0 +This one and "Her Pilgrim Soul" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie "Il Mare" (later remade into "The Lake House". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film.@@@1 +As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.

THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.

The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.

Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.

I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.@@@0 +This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.@@@1 +I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.

Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.

2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.@@@0 +Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.@@@1 +To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.@@@0 +You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.@@@1 +Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.

The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.

I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.

Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.

It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.

Bring back the old format.@@@0 +It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.

Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.

The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.

The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.

One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.

He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.

The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.

The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.

When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.

The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.

From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.

I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.

Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.

And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.

And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE.@@@1 +Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.@@@0 +Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)@@@1 +Unlike many, I don't find the premise or theme of this show the least bit offensive. Its execution, however, is another matter entirely. Like so many B-minus movies, all the decent gags appear to have been spliced into the trailers. For most of the 22-or-so minutes we sit in waning anticipation any morsel of real humor. Or at least something to keep one from fidgeting with the remote or counting carpet fibers. With a couple of exceptions the acting is awful; the comical over-emoting and gesticulating of some cast members might be well suited to a late-night infomercial, but not a primetime sitcom (even a Canadian one.) Notwithstanding the admittedly original cultural angle, I cannot help but think this is mainly a misfired shot by the CBC to replicate the success of Corner Gas. Unfortunately, they got the tone -- and the script -- completely wrong for the prairies. The final insult is that they apparently couldn't even afford to have the location work done in an actual small town (Why? are they so hard to find in Saskatchewan?) Did they think the audience would be fooled by the downtown Regina exteriors? As a proud Canadian I hope this thing goes away soon, and that the rest of the world, primed by the CBC's publicists, quickly forgets this colossal embarrassment of a sitcom.@@@0 +This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there?

The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen.

It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1.

That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.

The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team.

Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!@@@1 +This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.@@@0 +***Possible spoilers***

I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.

Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!@@@1 +I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?@@@0 +Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.

In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.@@@1 +This show is terrible, the jokes are all terrible and just getting worse and worse. I am one of those people who was never a big fan of Corner Gas but at least I liked it at first until it got into a rut around season two, all the jokes had been played out and the characters had nothing to them. Well at least Corner Gas was good at first, Little Mosque on the Prairie is typically awful bland CBC comedy that had nothing going for it from episode 1. Who are the people who are watching this show anyway, I am being honest is it old people or maybe just people who actually live on the prairies? Maybe the jokes are for them and they work there? I don't know a single person who likes this show and can't stand it myself, the jokes are totally predictable and the characters are even less developed than in Corner Gas. Hopefully it won't last much longer because all the success this show has had seems to me to be based entirely on the premise of this show being Muslim which is different and could/should have led to a great show.@@@0 +The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.@@@1 +If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.@@@0 +This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner.@@@1 +I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).

it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.

I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!@@@0 +Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10@@@1 +Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.@@@0 +I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.@@@1 +This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.@@@0 +We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)

This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.

It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold.@@@1 +Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.

Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.

Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.

And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).

And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.

And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.

Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.

Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.@@@0 +Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).@@@1 +This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.@@@0 +The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.@@@1 +I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.

Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.@@@0 +Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.@@@1 +I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(@@@0 +A message movie, but a rather good one. Outstanding cast, top to bottom. Interesting in that Bette Davis's plot line is essentially back story! The extremely negative reviews (name throwing at the screenplay/playwright, associating this somehow with extremely negative comments about 'Angles in America', etc. etc.) object to the movie being too preachy about Germany in WWII. Gosh, that is just a bit too sophisticated an understanding of morality for me.

Theatrical and movie-making, and acting styles vary over time and of course 70 years later this particular movie would not be made in this way. Yes Casablanca is a better movie (I guess), but although made in the same year and both having Nazis in them, Casablanca is primarily a love story. The love story in this movie takes second seat to the spy plot--more of a thriller. Both have a rather large number of somewhat cheesy accents and wonderful character actors. The children ARE a bit tedious and could have been edited@@@1 +While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!@@@0 +This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!

The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.

The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!

Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively.@@@1 +Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.@@@0 +Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.@@@1 +God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!@@@0 +Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....

The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.

Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.@@@1 +Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z@@@0 +This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.

The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.

All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.

FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!@@@1 +What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz@@@0 +Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.@@@1 +A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."

3/10@@@0 +The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.

Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.

If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film.@@@1 +Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.

The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.

Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.

3 out of 10 limping killers@@@0 +This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.@@@1 +I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.

No way could I recommend this mess.@@@0 +This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .@@@1 +Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.@@@0 +Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good.

What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.

But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable.

But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!@@@1 +This movie is just plain dumb.

From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.

Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.

Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.

To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.@@@0 +I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.

So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream…" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.

Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls.

So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.

His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all!

RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.

Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.

So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.

There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-—and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.

Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.

------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.@@@1 +How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!@@@0 +Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.

To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."

In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.

Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.

Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.

A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.

Geoff@@@1 +I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox@@@0 +Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.@@@1 +This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.@@@0 +A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.@@@1 +I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.@@@0 +Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this.@@@1 +Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.@@@0 +The "Amazing Mr. Williams" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point.@@@1 +The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".@@@0 +Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.

Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.

Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.

As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.

Entertaining if a little on the long side.

One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.@@@1 +Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.@@@0 +The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed.@@@1 +By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.@@@0 +What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.

It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.

Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.

The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best.@@@1 +You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.

The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.

Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.

Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.

The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.

The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!@@@0 +Delightful minor film, juggling comedy and detective, romance and drama genres as nimbly as Lt Kenny Williams (Melvyn Douglas) balances his devotion to his girl Maxine Carroll (Joan Blondell) and his duty to the force as an ace detective.

This hodge-podge may not appeal to all viewers today, but in its day, it had something to offer every member of the movie-going family, and the resolution to the rather tired feeling-versus-duty plot is original and refreshing, and well worth the wait.

"The Amazing Mr. Williams" contains what must be among the most outrageous blind dates in film history, and its bright comic repartee sparkles. Ludicrously frocked, Melvyn Douglas delivers some of the best lines: "I'd walk down Main Street in a Turkish towel before I'd let any woman control my life!" And the effervescent Joan Blondell lets her barbs fly with typical aplomb: "Good grief! You look like my Aunt Nellie!'

The crime-solving here is standard fare, although a fine cast of character actors helps bring the material to life.

From today's vantage point, "The Amazing Mr. Williams" is perhaps most interesting for its insightful commentary on gender as a socially defined construct, all the more malleable for its seemingly rigid boundaries. While much of the gender commentary takes place in a superficial battle of the sexes, at times it is both subtle and penetrating, playing out not only in some of the finer details of the film, but in the battle of genres that reaches its culmination in the final scene.@@@1 +I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character.

Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed.

But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.

I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life.

One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.

It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.

Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.@@@0 +This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.@@@1 +I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.@@@0 +This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking.@@@1 +First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.@@@0 +I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.@@@1 +After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!@@@0 +I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this.@@@1 +We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering.

The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.

Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become…a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).

The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil.

I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.

Score: 0.1/10 (If I could)

Pros:

They got the names right.

Cons:

It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.@@@0 +When the Chamberlain family is camping near Ayers Rock, Australia, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) sees her baby being dragged out of their tent by a dingo and then begins an ordeal that no one should have to experience. For it seems like the dingo story is not believed by the public or the press, and the whole thing turns into a circus. Lindy doesn't help matters either because she won't play to the jury or courtroom, she's only herself, and she's a tough nut to crack, so of course everyone thinks she's guilty because there's a piece of evidence that hasn't come to light. Sam Neill is excellent as Michael Chamberlain, a Seventh-Day adventist pastor, who has doubts about his faith and perhaps about his wife. It's good (or bad) to see that people are just as prejudiced and stupid elsewhere as they are in the States too, because the Australian public doesn't believe the story and the media only fans the flames. Eventually, Lindy is found guilty and sent to prison for a life of hard labor, but years later, a missing piece of evidence shows up and she's freed, but not until after the family's life is basically ruined. A heart-breaking story, very well done, a bit long but well worth seeing. 8 out of 10.@@@1 +This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.@@@0 +Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.

A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.

Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.

This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.

Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.

You will remember this movie for many years.

See it!@@@1 +I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.@@@0 +This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.

The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.

'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real.

Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.@@@1 +I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".

How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.

The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.

A wrinkle in time:*/****@@@0 +A CRY IN THE DARK

A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.

Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.

The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.

While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.

The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.

The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.

The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.

In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.

More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.

... A ...@@@1 +I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.

It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.

There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.

The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.@@@0 +Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.@@@1 +I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen.

As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary!

I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created!

Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed?

I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task!@@@0 +In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.

Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.

Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.

Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.

The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.

Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.

For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."

Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video

Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.

Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.

Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.

Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.

Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.

Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video@@@1 +(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.

@@@0 +I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.

When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.

The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.

Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.

She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...

Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.

This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public.@@@1 +I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!@@@0 +I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.

Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.@@@1 +I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.

A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.

The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.@@@0 +Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B@@@1 +The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.@@@0 +This movie was nominated for best picture but lost out to Casablanca but Paul Lukas beat out Humphrey Bogart for best actor. I don't see why Lucile Watson was nominated for best supporting actor, i just don't think she did a very good job. Bette Davis and Paul Lukas and their three kids are leaving Mexico and coming into the United States in the first scene of the movie. They are going by train to Davis's relatives house. Davis and Lukas were in the underground to stop the Nazis so they are very tired and need rest. But when they arrive home, their is a Nazi living there and their's not much either can do about it. It turns out the Nazi only cares about money and is willing to make a deal with Lukas. Their is more to the plot but you can find that out for yourself.@@@1 +Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.

"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.@@@0 +This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.

One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.

The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.

(Spoiler warning!)

I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.

I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well.@@@1 +I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.

@@@0 +Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10@@@1 +This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.@@@0 +Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.

Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.

This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.@@@1 +Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.@@@0 +Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.@@@1 +I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.@@@0 +Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media.@@@1 +The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.@@@0 +This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.

The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.

I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.

8/10@@@1 +Awful. This thriller should have buried. What a piece of crap. Terrible writing, characters are less than believable. Horrible Schlock!! Stick some B- stars in a terribly written POS to try and give it a little credit, but it fails miserably. If I didn't have to write ten lines about this movie I would have given it a word word review, it starts with 'sh' and ends with 'it'.

Horrible ending, retarded. Who writes this crap. The ending of this film is so contrived, weak it's as if they had no idea what to do with this story line, or they just ran out of money. Most likely due to the number of cameos in this movie. It's a good thing that these actors are on the way out, because this would be a career killer. Good thing for them that hardly anyone will see it. At least no one important, like future investors. It could have ended a thousand different ways, but as it is, I feel cheated out of my precious time.

Don't bother with this one, you will feel like you wasted time you can never get back.@@@0 +An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld."@@@1 +These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.@@@0 +When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.@@@1 +This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them.

The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.

ejames6342@@@0 +Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep.@@@1 +This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".@@@0 +"A Cry in the Dark" is a masterful piece of cinema, haunting, and incredibly though provoking. The true story of Lindy Chamberland, who, in 1980, witnessed a horrific sight, seeing her 3-month-old baby being brutally taken from their family's tent, while camping on the Austrailian outback. Azaria (the baby) was never seen again, and the result of her horrendous disappearance caused a true life frenzy all around the world. Meryl Streep does immaculate justice to the role of Lindy, as she always does. But the one thing that helps "A Cry in the Dark" never fall flat is the brilliant direction. A truly inspired and accurate outlook on this baffeling case, tears are brought to the eyes. The concept is nothing less then terrifying, and afterwards you are left haunted, but also inspired.@@@1 +As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.@@@0 +Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.@@@1 +Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.@@@0 +Some movies seem to be made before we are ready for them. As I watched this film, made in 1988, in 1999, I thought I was watching the O.J. Simpson debacle (although I have very different opinions about the innocence of the individuals in each situation).

The Australian news media, if this movie is to be believed, devoured the case of a possible infanticide and truth was left as an afterthought. It was scary to see the scenes of invasive, swarming media hordes, ridiculous accounts of half-truths and lies and debates over the supposed merits of the case by persons at all levels of society.

Equally appalling is the media's depiction as indifferent and uncomprehending of the technical information in the case. I do wish more was made of the issue of religious prejudice in the case (the accused are Seven-Day Adventists).

Today these circuses have become common but that makes the lesson only more important.

Streep is excellent as usual, and this is the best I've ever seen Sam Neill. The Aussie accents get a bit thick at times but not incomprehensible.@@@1 +I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.@@@0 +This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.@@@1 +Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 +ROLL is a wonderful little film. Toby Malone plays an 18 year old kid (very well acted, by the way) who is into soccer. Malone's cousin takes him out the night before his big game on an adventure with many twists and turns involving two gym bags, a drug lord, some tough bikers, some cops, and some prostitutes ... and the movie keeps us guessing as to which characters are on which side of the law, what the contents of either gym bag is, and even what gender a key biker is. Parts of it reminded me of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING Barrels.

For me, ROLL reinforced three opinions that I already held before seeing ROLL. Those opinions are: 1. I really want to visit Australia one day. The country and cities are beautiful and it looks like such a cool place for a vacation.

2. Some of the best filmmakers in the are Australian. The cinematography in ROLL was especially impressive. I loved the stylized colors and lighting in many of the scenes.

3. Australian women are HOT!@@@1 +I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".

Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.@@@0 +Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.

But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.

Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.

Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.@@@1 +This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.@@@0 +I just sat through a very enjoyable fast paced 45 mins of ROLL.

Roll is about a country boy, Mat (Toby Malone) who has dreams of becoming a Sports Star. Mat travels to the city and is to be picked up by his cousin George (Damien Robertson). Well, that was the plan anyway. George is involved with a gangster, Tiny (John Batchelor) and is making a delivery for him. Needless to say, Mat gets dragged into George's world.

I thought it was great how Mat teaches George some morals and respect while George teaches Mat how to relax and enjoy life a little. Toby and Damien were well cast together and did an outstanding job.

Every character in the movie complimented each other very well, the two cops were great. David Ngoombujarra brought some great comic relief to the movie. Tiny played a likable gangster that reminded me of one of my favourite characters 'Pando' from Two Hands.

One of the other things that I liked about Roll was that it showcased the cities that I grew up and lived in for 20 years, Perth and Fremantle. It was good to see sights and landmarks that I grew up with, especially the old Ferris wheel.

This Rocks 'n' Rolls@@@1 +A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)

@@@0 +A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour.@@@1 +This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10@@@0 +I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10@@@1 +I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.@@@0 +A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.

Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.

Highly recommended.@@@1 +Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."@@@0 +This film is an hour or so of good entertainment and has some genuinely funny moments. I loved the character of Matt, and also Tiny. They seemed the most engaging and funny characters, and certainly the most interesting. Matt is very good (as is his no good cousin), and the police woman and the blonde biker woman provide some welcome eye candy. I must say I saw striking similarities between Matt and another Aussie actor, Eric Bana. My personal favourite part was the brothel scene, loved that. Overall, I liked the film and it'll get about an 8 rating. The penalty however, I was disappointed in. It was a side foot curl, rather than the appropriate laces blast.

I am of course kidding. :)@@@1 +While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.@@@0 +Plato's run is an entertaining b movie with Gary Busey.it is a fairly unknown film so one i saw it at a car boot i thought this looks entertaining i was right to.Gary Busey plays Plato smith a tough mercenary who is framed for the assassination of a powerful Cuban crime lord now on the run Plato must survive long enough to prove his innocence with the help of his friends played by Steve Bauer (scarface) and action star Jeff Speaksman (the expert). what i liked about Plato's run was the way the film never got boring the plot may have been done before but it was still good the acting was fun to watch and the action was quite fun as well especially the climax Gary Busey makes a good hero ironic since he normally plays the bad guy and Steve Bauer is good as Plato's sidekick even Jeff Speaksman makes a good performance and he cant even act well to finish it of Plato's run is an enjoyable effort from nu image films and i give it 7 out of 10@@@1 +Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.@@@0 +"A wrong-doer is often a man that has left something undone, not always he that has done something."--Emperor Marcus Aurelius

The DVD release of "Watch on the Rhine" could not come at a better moment. It restores to us a major Lillian Hellman play stirringly adapted to the screen by Dashiell Hammett (Hellman scholar Bernard F. Dick's audio commentary affirms his authorship). It presents a subtle performance by Bette Davis, who took a subdued secondary role long after she'd become the workhorse queen at the Warner Bros. lot. Equally significantly, it reminds us that World War II had a purpose.

Sure, you say, like we needed that. We've heard Cary Grant sermonizing in "Destination Tokyo" (1943) about Japanese boys and their Bushido knives. We've watched jackboots stomp the living hills in "The Sound of Music" (1965). We've toured an England callously occupied by Germany in "It Happened Here" (1966). Yet, truth to tell, we still need the message spread.

I have an 81-year-old friend who curses Franklin Roosevelt regularly. He feels that FDR connived the U.S. into a foreign fight we didn't need, and thereby caused the death of his favorite cousin. He's encouraged in his demonizing of Allied leaders and the trivializing of War Two by Patrick Buchanan.

The political columnist has freshly released a fat book heavy with detailed research which claims that Adolf Hitler would have posed no further menace to Poland, Europe, or the world if only the Third Reich had been handed the Free City of Danzig in 1939. Buchanan holds that if those selfish Poles hadn't confronted the Nazis, drawing in foolishly meddling Britain and giddily altruistic France, no war would have engulfed the West. He believes that without the rigors of Total War, no one in Germany would have built gas chambers to provide a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.

Some commenters on this site feel that "Watch" sags under the weight of stale propaganda. Maybe. However, neither my friend nor Pat Buchanan seem to have gotten the film's point: Some people hurt and kill to grab other people's land, goods, and liberty; such people dominated the Axis Powers and "enough" didn't appear in their vocabulary.

Paul Lukas deserved the Oscar he won. He and Bette Davis put convincing passion into their portrayals of refugees who fight oppressors. They give emotional punch to the intellectual case for stepping off the sidelines, for actively facing down torturers and murderers. Bernard Dick notes that Hellman didn't care for Lukas as a person since he stayed apolitical. Of course, as a Hungarian he had seen first-hand Bela Kun's bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat" replace an outmoded empire and then topple to Admiral Horthy's right-wing tyranny.

In a marvelous cameo role added to the play by Hammett, Henry Daniell sardonically depicts a Wehrmacht officer of the class that disdains the brown shirts he serves. His Phili von Ramme would doubtless stand with Field Marshal Rommel in 1944 during the Plot of July 20th against Hitler. In April 1940, however, he pragmatically abets the Nazi cause, although he insults Herr Blecher "the Butcher" and scorns the Rumanian aristocrat Teck de Brancovis for trying to peddle information on an Underground leader.

Teck, a pauper and possible cuckold, wishes cash and a visa to return to Europe where he can resume the shreds of a life that had come undone with the empire-shattering Great War and the greater world-wide economic Depression. He has no political convictions, no scruples about trading a freedom fighter for his own tomorrow. Mercury Theater graduate George Coulouris lends this burnt-out case's Old World cynicism an edge of desperate menace.

Lucille Watson gives winsome vitality to the grasping man's hostess, a domineering old gal who knows her mind and gets her way--but who doesn't adequately appreciate her children and their achievements outside the home she controls. She and her pallid office-bound son belong to the American version of von Ramme's and de Brancovis' privileged kind. However, this family hasn't seen ruin and never will. They're moneyed people who could silently advance evil simply by not opposing it.

This mother and son might easily make choices which would reflect that complaisance toward National Socialism and Fascism which flourishes today in my friend and in pundit Buchanan. "Watch on the Rhine" has a manicured period look. Its dialogue reflects its erudite origins on the stage rather than sounding fresh from the streets. Yet Hellman and Hammett's film has gut-based power. Audiences still need to hear and heed its call to arms against grabbers relentlessly on the march.@@@1 +That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.

First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.

I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...

Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.

What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how "cool and edgy" he is.

Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.

What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...

In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand.@@@0 +in 1976 i had just moved to the us from ceylon. i was 23, and had been married for a little over three years, and was beginning to come out as a lesbian. i saw this movie on an old black and white TV, with terrible reception, alone, and uninterrupted, in an awakening that seemed like an echo of the story. i was living in a small house in tucson arizona, and it was summertime... like everyone else here, i never forgot the feelings the images of this story called forth, and its residue of fragile magic, and i have treasured a hope that i would see it again someday. i'll keep checking in. i also wish that someone would make a movie of shirley verel's 'the other side of venus'. it also has some of the same delicacy and persistent poignancy...@@@1 +I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.@@@0 +The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD.@@@1 +Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.@@@0 +As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.

Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html@@@1 +The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives.

Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster.@@@0 +I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it.

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video?@@@1 +This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?@@@0 +Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.

One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.

I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.

12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.@@@1 +..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.

Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.

Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.

Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.

Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.

Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.@@@0 +It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!!@@@1 +At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.

Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.@@@0 +what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is.@@@1 +This could have been interesting – a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family – but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.

The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department – a giant crab attack is merely silly – as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup!

At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there – eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created – leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster – tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.@@@0 +Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.@@@1 +Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.@@@0 +I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.

It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.

And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.

While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.

And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?

Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!@@@1 +From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.@@@0 +I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA!@@@1 +Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.

The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.

No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.

Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.

Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.

BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.@@@0 +Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.

I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.

I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.

I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.@@@1 +Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.

Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.

What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.

I know I didn't.

Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.@@@0 +Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.

Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).

In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.

Stars: **** (excellent)@@@1 +I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.

************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.

Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.

Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.

I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.

These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.

Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer.

Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?

I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************

But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'@@@0 +It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library!@@@1 +I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.

This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.

B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve.

The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.

(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?

Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those…@@@0 +This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true.@@@1 +I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.

First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.

The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.

Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.

I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.

This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.@@@0 +Let's cut a long story short. I loved every minute of it. A lavish fantasy in true Arabian-Nights style. There's an evil magician, a pretty princess, a djinn and everybody lives happily ever after. Modern Hollywoond sure does have one or two things to learn from this classic. Only quibble: the special effects are pretty dated (loved Sabu with the djinn's foot, though!)@@@1 +Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.@@@0 +A magical journey concocted by Alexander Korda and Michael Powell. These two TITANS of the British cinema have mixed some fabulous ingredients to produce a movie masterpiece! Some of the most ravishing early Technicolor, a SUBLIME and shimmering Miklos Rozsa musical score along with the youthful exuberance of Sabu, the theatrical and malevolent villainy of Conrad Veidt and the exquisite beauty and voice of June Duprez as the princess all work wonderfully well. Miles Malleson who plays Duprez father, the Sultan of Basra, also wrote the perfect screenplay which is appropriately grandiose. DON'T MISS THIS ONE! Since posting the above comments, I have obtained the recently released DVD and can honestly say I'd never seen the picture properly until viewing this DVD version-The clarity and resolution is so precise and the colors are so vivid that I was stunned-This amazing classic can be watched time an again and never fails to charm and delight the viewer. Again, A MUST SEE!@@@1 +With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.@@@0 +A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10.@@@1 +Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.@@@0 +This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.

For John Kobal's 1987 book, "The Top 100 Movies", his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.

The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.

The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!

John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15–year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.

Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable.@@@1 +Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.@@@0 +The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.

According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.

Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.

The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.

The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser.

Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.

The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.@@@1 +Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.@@@0 +Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.

If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.

I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.

Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie.@@@1 +There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?@@@0 +This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. "Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?" Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.

I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys.

It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, "Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it." The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking "some fun, and adventure at last!"@@@1 +One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.@@@0 +I have seen this film several times, and watched it today (on TCM) solely because of Geraldine Fitzgerald. She is a much underrated actress and I have to admit I have had a crush on her since I first saw her (probably in "Wuthering Heights" 40 or more years ago). The real star in this movie, however, is Paul Lukas, and he deserved all the accolades he got. He makes it clear, whether we like it or not, that the end justifies the means. Naziism had to be stopped, and anything that helped do it was good. He gave his children a line about being bad, and that they should not be bad, but as he said earlier when conversing with adults, he would do this sort of thing again without hesitation. Lukas did give an excellent portrayal of a man caught in this situation, and made it clear that what he did was a very hard thing to do.

Some people think his victim was a Nazi, but I don't think so - I think he was only after the money. His Nazi associates knew this and that is why they did not have much use for him.

One interesting point in the film, and presumably also in the play, is the fact that Muller (Lucas) is a German. While the anti German hysteria of WWI was not repeated in WWII, there was considerable anti-German sentiment and some Germans were interred similar to what happened in California with people of Japanese ancestry. It was something of an act of bravery for Hellman to write a play about good Germans at this time (maybe she thought they were the ones who signed the Nazi-Soviet pact!). After all, the US and British air forces were bombing German cities and having no qualms about killing innocent civilians. I think, however, that the Dresden bombing and firestorm happened later, after "Watch on the Rhine" was released.

The title is something of a play on words, as the "watch" is looking west, from Germany. In fact, Watch am Rhein was a German army marching song - used in WWII, but the Nazis had their own marching song that was used as well. But Muller IS a German and he is engaged in his own "Wach am Rhein".

All the other actors did an excellent job here; although Bodo was too much there are children like him. I am surprised he did not give his father's secret away. In real life, he may very well have done so.@@@1 +This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.

Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).

This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).

Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.@@@0 +when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D@@@1 +Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another.

The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?

I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.@@@0 +Probably the finest fantasy film ever made. Sumptuous colour, spectacular sets, incredible, spot-on Miklos Rosza musical score that is perfect for each scene and mood. Acting is superb as well in what could have been stiff and pretentious in lesser hands, but here the poetic dialog is deftly, sensitively spoken (the humour is subtle and delightful as well).

Doubtless Spielberg and Lucas were enthralled by this one. Along with "The Four Feathers" (1939), one of the two finest motion pictures released by Alexander Korda and London Films---and one of the finest motion pictures ever made.

A true, compelling classic!@@@1 +Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.

Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.

Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.@@@0 +Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old.@@@1 +Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!

The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.

What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.

But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.

So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.@@@0 +I first saw Thief as a child which makes me almost as old as the Jinn I guess. As any kid would be, I was delighted with the imagination, inventiveness and energy of the film. Several years later, I realized how much of the satire and wit of the script I had missed on that first viewing. I have never passed up an opportunity to watch it throughout the intervening years. In addition to the script, the production transcends the fantasy genre. This is Korda, the storyteller at his very best. When you see Thief as a child you know that you`ve had a great time. When you see Thief as an adult you know that you`ve seen a masterpiece. It`s as timeless as the story it treats. An amazing work.

Thomas McCarthy@@@1 +Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.@@@0 +This is an Oriental fantasy about ¨thousand and one Arabian nights¨ plenty of incredible adventures, fantasy witchery and wizardly. The malignant vizier Jaffar (magnificently played by Conrad Veidt)with powerful magic faculties imprisons the prince Ahamad of Bagdad(attractive John Justin)who loses his throne, then he escapes thanks a little thief named Abu(sympathetic Sabu). They arrive Basora where Ahamad and the princess(gorgeous June Duprez) fall in love. But prince and thief are haunted by Jaffar , Ahamd is turned blind and Abu is become a dog. The story accumulates several fantastic ingredients such as transformation of the starring, a flying mechanic horse, magic bow, flying carpet and of course the colossal genie(overacting performed by Rex Ingram) who gives three wishes to Sabu , the magic eye, the figure of goddess Kali with several hands, among others.

This remarkable picture ranks as one of the finest fantastic films of all time. Produced by London Fim's Alexander Korda and directed by the definitively credited Ludwing Berger, Michael Powell and Tim Whelan with a stunning screenplay by Lajos Biro and Miles Malleson also dialogs writer and actor as Sultan fond to mechanic games. The WWII outbreak caused the paralyzing shooting, then the three Korda brothers and collaborators traveled USA continuing there the filming in especial on Grand Cannon Colorado.The splendid visual and glimmer Technicolor cinematography , setting and FX provoked the achieving three Oscars : Production design by William Cameron Menzies and Vincent Korda ,Cinematography by George Perinal and Special effects by Osmond Borradaile though today are dated and is urgent a necessary remastering because the colors are worn-out. Furthermore one nomination for the evocative and oriental musical score by Miklos Rozsa. This vivid tale with immense doses of imagination will like to fantasy fans and cinema classic buffs@@@1 +Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.@@@0 +Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.

It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.

Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people.@@@1 +This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_3.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_3.txt index 01be4fd..da019f1 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_3.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_3.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.

Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.

Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.

I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.

There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.

A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out@@@1 -Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.

Sorry to be so critical.@@@0 -This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.

Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.

His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.

The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.

Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.

The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.@@@1 -I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.

Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.@@@0 -One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.

The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements.@@@1 -This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.@@@0 -Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.

Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).

The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.

This programme is available on network DVD@@@1 -I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.

** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly.

If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:

First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.@@@0 -Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned.@@@1 -Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things.

The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.

Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.@@@0 -As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.@@@1 -SPOILERS AHEAD

This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, "Flashlight!" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, "oh yeah!" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.

I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.@@@0 -While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television.@@@1 -How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.@@@0 -Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: "Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.

It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times.

In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...

On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past.

A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.

Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.

For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.

Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.

The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.

After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'.@@@1 -So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.@@@0 -This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.

A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.

All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great.@@@1 -Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them.

In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage.

Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.

Is that the spoiler?

It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...

So what's the spoiler?

Lemme think...

No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested.

I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!@@@0 -In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.

This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.

The ending is wonderful.@@@1 -This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!@@@0 -This film has a clear storyline, which is quite unusual to the musical genre. "Cats", "Phantom of the Opera", and other Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals can be considered metaphorical, as they use literary works as their framework. "Biarkan Bintang Menari" (BBM)'s storyline touches the very core of human relationships, especially that of Indonesian people. Despite the fact the film was based on a "supposedly" fairytale, it's actually a fantasy of the 'child' in Indonesian adults. The dance sequences are not perfect, yet the songs represent how Indonesians express themselves. I reckon the choreographer should explore Indonesian way of dancing, by not dismaying the fact that Indonesia's dance development tends to be more westernized. The dance sequences seem awkward in some ways and not synchronized with the songs and/or music. Yet, I still love this movie and regard it as a new wave of Indonesian film genre which I hope to improve in the future.@@@1 -Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.@@@0 -And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie.

All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.

While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer.

It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.@@@1 -Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?@@@0 -I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10.@@@1 -End Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.

The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.@@@0 -I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.

Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.

Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...

(9/10)@@@1 -I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?@@@0 -As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)@@@1 -Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.

4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.@@@0 -I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!@@@1 -My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.

I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.

Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).

What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).

One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.

Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.

If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.@@@0 -Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through.@@@1 -i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.

angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.

and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.

poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.@@@0 -I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.@@@1 -I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.@@@0 -Good, funny, straightforward story, excellent Nicole Kidman (I almost always like the movies she's in). This was a good "vehicle" for someone adept at comedy and drama since there are elements of both. A romantic comedy wrapped around two crime stories, great closing lines. Chaplin, very good here, was also good in another good, but unpopular romantic comedy ("Truth about Cats & Dogs"). Maybe they're too implausible. Ebert didn't even post a review for this. The great "screwball" comedies obviously were totally implausible ("Bringing up Baby", etc.). If you've seen one implausible comedy, you've seen them all? Or maybe people are ready to move on from the 1930s. Weird. Birthday Girl is a movie I've enjoyed several times. Nicole Kidman may be the "killer app" for home video.@@@1 -Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.

Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.

Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.

Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.

The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.

Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.

Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.

Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.@@@0 -This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 -Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.@@@0 -I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.

I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.

http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm

It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.

My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

WuMaster

- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com@@@1 -I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!@@@0 -Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.@@@1 -...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?@@@0 -Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing.@@@1 -On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.

However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.

There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.@@@0 -Modern, original, romantic story.

Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.

Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me.

Conclusion : good movie.

Les Pays-Bas : huit points.@@@1 -First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.@@@0 -A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their "businesses" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 -The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.

Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.@@@0 -When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's.

Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable.

Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.

Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.

I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing.

I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime.@@@1 -Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.

It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.

I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.

The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.

Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling".

During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.

The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.

And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.

@@@0 -I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.@@@1 -I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.@@@0 -The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!@@@1 -1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.@@@0 -This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.@@@1 -The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).@@@0 -The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.

Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).

Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.

See it with an open mind!@@@1 -Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****@@@0 -From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in "K-19." Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz.@@@1 -Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.

Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.

The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.

OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.

This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.@@@0 -This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series"Heartbeat" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character.@@@1 -but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.@@@0 -Are you a giraffe?... ask John to Nadia, and she, sure of responding well, responds him: yes. In this way begin the communication between a man and a woman who don't know each other, and at the same time, the questions and doubts in "Birthday Girl". A film that i heard a lot of times, but i don't dare to see... until two hours of write this.

"Birthday Girl" is a passionate movie that makes me fall in count, at the same time, that Nicole Kidman is one of the best actress (Besides she is pretty and intelligent) that i have ever seen. "Birthday Girl" is the story of a lonely and routine man who looks for a wife at internet. The woman that he finds comes from Russia. She seems to be that delicate woman, normal, not more. One day, in her birthday comes suddenly, his cousin and his friend. The man, begin to discover certain things. Since here, he don't going to be the lonely and routine man that always have been.

Much of us going to think that this movie is just a regular one with a exploited plot. Much of us going to think that the action and thrills are sure and don't novel. But "Birthday Girl" is just the opposite. This movie is full of good surprises, good performances and a imaginative plot that i had never seen and imagined. This romantic thriller with certain funny touch is an excellent natural film with a lot of proposes for the films of it kind. "Birthday Girl" have certain beauty and crudeness in its scenes, but at the same time, certain touching nature, and makes it so deeper.

"Birthday Girl" is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes violent, but at the end, is totally satisfactory. And I'm not sorry in say that this is a masterpiece.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.@@@1 -It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.@@@0 -The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.@@@1 -Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!

Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!

In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.

Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.

In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.

Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.

Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!!@@@0 -This is a good example a film that in spite of the low rating is more than worth watching. The story is engaging and it doesn't take long before the chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin grabs your attention. The acting is first class and the characters are represented well. Sometimes it feels like the director couldn't decide himself between drama and romantic comedy. Ben Chiller's portrayal of the law abiding and shy Englishman with porn S.M. magazines hidden in the bedroom creates plenty of moments for laughs! As does the look in Nicole Kidman's eyes when she is offering John his first taste of intimacy in a long time... Other times the actors and especially Nicole Kidman give this comedy quite expertly a dramatic slant.@@@1 -Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.@@@0 -For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.@@@1 -Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.

Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!@@@0 -John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman – the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait")@@@1 -This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.

Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.

If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.

The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.

Too bad, I really wanted to like this.@@@0 -This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.

This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.

What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".

Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.

The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.

My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.

Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.@@@1 -I can't think of much to say about this film.

This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.

The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved.

The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage.

If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.@@@0 -Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory.@@@1 -I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.@@@0 -I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.

This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.

I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.

OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.

Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.

Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please!@@@1 -Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.

1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)@@@0 -I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!@@@1 -The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.

The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.

The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.@@@0 -This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)@@@1 -This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.@@@0 -An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.@@@1 -Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.@@@0 -The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.

Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.

Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery.

"My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.

Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.

Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.

He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?

In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.

Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced.@@@1 -For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.@@@0 -Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces.@@@1 -What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.@@@0 -I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10.@@@1 -Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.

As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.

Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.

It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)@@@0 -Excellent show. Instead of watching the same old sitcom type shows where it's the same old thing, just different "stars", this refreshing show provided an incredibly entertaining view of office situations. We have been away from watching any television for 2 years and after coming back, of all the shows available we look forward to watching this show on W. Shame on Global for pulling the plug on this one. I thought this one would be a winner. Let's be realistic about things, FEW Canadian SHOWS make it. Everyone I talk to enjoys this show and I believe it was foolish of Global to walk away. I guess they want to stick it out with the typical mind numbing shows from the States instead of pulling behind a Canadian made show that had a lot of promise. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lot of shows on TV, but, come on people, let's keep the variety. This unique show provided a very comedic view of a slightly exaggerated realistic side of office life and relationships, with unique characters that you don't see on any sitcoms today or in the past. Too bad that global had to say no to this one, foolish mistake.@@@1 -I give this a generous four out of ten stars, or dots or markers, or something.

There were a grand total of two really really funny scenes in this movie. All the scenes with Amy P and Tina Fey and Greg Kinnear (Greg Kinnear!!) moved along agreeably enough.

Otherwise, the usual trafficking in stereotypes, blazing speed, rudely pushed along by a stupid soundtrack, and "soundtrack" is generous.

Anyway, the two really really funny scenes involved Amy P. She's just really hilarious in an animal kind of way. She's a mixture of that ape man skit that they do on SNL and Lucille Ball.

I hope they (Amy P and Tina Fey) just flat out admitted they did this for the money, because if by doing it, it gave birth to the Sarah Palin parodies, then I guess we can say, yeah, it was worth it to put the black guy back into the servant man role, who's really there to help you be more human.

Blah. 4 outta 10 like I said is generous.

But no more, girls, OK? Oh, I almost forgot. The mom from "Two and a Half Men" is in this movie, and she's had some kind of plastic surgery, so that her mouth now looks like the mouth of a 30 year old, so every scene she's in, I'm like trying to rearrange her face, or put it together in my mind, or just answer the question, "No. Wait. Wait. HAS she had plastic surgery?" Because as a viewer, you really don't want her to have had plastic surgery.@@@0 -Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.

The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.

The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.

I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.

I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,"invisible", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour.@@@1 -Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.

Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.

Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.

Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....

4/10@@@0 -Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also.@@@1 -I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.@@@0 -definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well.@@@1 -A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.

I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.

The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.

She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.

Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked … oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!

Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!

It's just too unlikely.@@@0 -Hurrah! A space film that doesn't take itself too seriously and everyone can come along for the exciting ride that is space camp. The film starts slowly, the usual mix of idiots and high-fliers mixed together into a dodgy soup. But when the going gets tough - the tough get themselves sorted out and it's not an un-believable change in the characters as you can believe that there's some responsibility in their young minds.

The only flaw in the film is that Kate Capshaw is EXTREMELY annoying as the "I'm right and you're all wrong" instructor. I would recommend this as a nice night in movie and a 7 Vote.@@@1 -I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off.@@@0 -This is one of the most guilty pleasure movies ever!

I am embarrassed to say that my favorite character is TISH, but still enjoy watching her make her space outfit "like super cool" with a "like totally bitchin" belt and stick on rhinestones on her face.

But anyways, the movie is actually one of the few "family" movies that holds your interest. I know that the begining drags, particuarly if you know what is going to happen, but the second half is probably one of the most nerve wracking segments in a family film.

I wouldn't stand up in front of millions of people and proclaim to love this movie, in fact renting it is pretty embarrassing itself, but I'll admit it here with the internet to hide behind.

@@@1 -An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.

A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.

This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.@@@0 -Spacecamp is one of the movies that kids just love, and mom and dad can have fun watching as well. Growing up in the 80's I enjoyed this movie, it's plot and all the actors. I recently purchased this movie on DVD so when I have kids of my own, they will be able to have as much fun watching this movie as I did. The plot is fun, A group of kids, embark on a journey they never expected, when they were rocketed into space by a overachieving robot. They were in auh at first but when they realized they didn't have enough oxygen to make it back panic sunk in. Once they recovered enough oxygen from the space station they returned to earth as even better friends and a new found respect for life.@@@1 -**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.

Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.

Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.

At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.

The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.

We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.

With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.@@@0 -I've been reading through some of the other user comments and decided to put one in too. Some of the users are stuck in a 'realist' type of mentality. This film was meant to be a 'fantasy'....a 'what if' fun film. It was never meant to be 'real' or serious. It was thoroughly enjoyable for everyone I knew when it came out - even though it shadowed the tragedy of the Challenger explosion...I was 30 at the time and totally enjoyed this one - my young son loved it too! Later, I shared it with my daughter and she, too, loved it. SpaceCamp is a fun family film that should be enjoyed for just that - fun. All the 'realists' in the world should lighten up or stick to watching documentaries or docudramas and avoid any other type of film. So sorry for those young folks who watched this movie first and then were able to go to the real SpaceCamp (one in Alabama and one at Vandenberg AFB in California) - they must have gone expecting to find the same type of environment that was portrayed in the movie and then felt 'letdown'...I guess their parents didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Oh well. If you love fantasy-fun films and haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it! Enjoy!@@@1 -The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.

To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.

Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.@@@0 -This is one of those feel good, Saturday afternoon movies. It's right up there with other retro flicks like Flight of the Navigator. Just a cute movie with some subtle comedy to lighten things up. And it's fun to see how 20 years has changed the stars like Kelly Preston and Lea Thompson. Not to mention Joquin Phoenix.

I personally really like movies like this from time to time. Nothing too deep or too scary. Just a nice story line. And I would have never known Mr. Phoenix had I not recently read the credits. He was just a baby really when he made this movie.

Kelly Preston was quite the young budding actress then too. She and Lea did a wonderful job in this movie. I agree it's not an Oscar caliber movie. But very much worth watching. Especially if you have kids in the , let's say, 8 to 11 year old range. Or ones that are interested in the space program.@@@1 -this is the perfect example of something great going awfully bad... hence, can i advice anyone to watch it? well, i was kinda obliged by the fact that in was in the tiff competition (i still can't believe it won)..and i only remained until the end because the director was there for a q&a section..but that was also anything but interesting.. what's it about? well the first half (the worth watching one) presents three characters: a hooker, a musician and some kind of official..the first two lie about their professions..but the third is the actual liar.. the second half (do something else..don't ruin a good evening) includes some old breasts and heavy drinking.. but maybe you will see it completely different...the tiff jury did (were they drinking vodka ?)@@@0 -Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.

This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.

The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.

This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.@@@1 -As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.@@@0 -To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).@@@1 -I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!@@@0 -This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable.

It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy.@@@1 -The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness.

In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?

Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.@@@0 -The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.

Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around

excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math@@@1 -The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.

I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.

Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.@@@0 -A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.

First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.

It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.

The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.

Overall, it is a good family movie.

@@@1 -Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.

The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...

This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...

I do not ever wanna see this movie again.

Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...@@@0 -i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.@@@1 -The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.@@@0 -Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.

While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.

I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.

All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.@@@1 -Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick!

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!@@@0 -I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch.

They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.

Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.

I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.

Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.

The DVD I have watched feels edited for television.@@@1 -The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.@@@0 -I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows?@@@1 -The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.@@@0 -Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot "Jinx"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...

-Thanks for reading@@@1 -I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.

This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.

Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.@@@0 -WOW!

This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.

Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE.

It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One.

In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.

Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.

We must never forget.

@@@1 -I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.@@@0 -When this first came out 6 months after the tragedy, I didn't want to see it. I didn't want to open old wounds. I regretted it. Now I have seen the movie. Thank God I did. It shows you the bravery of all the FDNY and NYPD. I salute you. It offered me closure. I can now move on with my life.@@@1 -Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.

So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.

The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).

If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.@@@0 -These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.

The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City.@@@1 -The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.@@@0 -If I didn't know any better, it almost seems like it was staged, but it wasn't. It was set up perfectly, and how they got all of that footage is amazing! The unfortunate events of September 11, 2001 are put together well in this documentary and the classic footage that they got made this an unfortunate classic. Just the history in the footage alone should make it a MUST see for any american or person touched by the tragedy of September 11.@@@1 -I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.

The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.@@@0 -SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10@@@1 -This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.

It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.

Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.)@@@0 -Amazing documentary. Saw it on original airdate and on DVD a few times in the last few years. I was shocked that it wasn't even nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar for 2002, the year it was released. No other documentary even comes close.

It was on TV recently for the 5th anniversary, but I missed the added "where are they now" segment at the end, except I did catch that tony now works for the hazmat unit.

I've seen criticism on documentary film-making from a few on this list. I can't see how this could have been done any different. They had less than 6 months to assemble this and get it on the air. The DVD contains more material and background.

I'm also surprised that according to IMDb.com, the brother have had no projects in the four years since. What have they been doing?@@@1 -'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.@@@0 -It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.@@@1 -I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!@@@0 -Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen.@@@1 -This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.

I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.@@@0 -The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.@@@1 -MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.

Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.

Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.@@@0 -Difficult film to comment on, how do you say it's bad? Well it isn't, but then it's equally difficult to say it is good. What it is, is compelling viewing, it is as close as you will get to utter devastation without being there. It is the photographs of the tsunami approaching the coast of Thailand brought to life, you know you want to turn away but you have to watch.

The Naudet brothers handle the commentary very well, even in the most tragic of circumstances, there view on something which is happening in another country neither panders nor insults. The facts are on the cellulose and little is needed for the viewer to understand or comprehend what is going on.

You can't change history, and you should not want, this film stands as a testament to humanity in its darkest hour.@@@1 -i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10@@@0 -I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and

I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.

Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.

And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties.

So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened.@@@1 -This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.

All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.@@@0 -The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.@@@1 -In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.@@@0 -Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.

That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.

Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way.@@@1 -Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)@@@0 -I live in Missouri, so the direct effects of terrorism are largely unknown to me, this brought it home. That two men would put themselves on the line in the way that those members of FDNY and NYPD did, just to document the horror that unfolded on that day. This film is a testament to those who lost their lives and the true evil that terror brings.@@@1 -Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and – it has to be said – the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!@@@0 -Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.

Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.

Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.

The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis.

Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date.@@@1 -Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.

This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.

Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.@@@0 -I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help.@@@1 -Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.

Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.

SIGNED, THE ANSWER@@@0 -I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!@@@1 -This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.

2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.

If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.@@@0 -dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me!@@@1 -I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.@@@0 -Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.

Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.

Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.

After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.@@@1 -After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.

To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.

As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.

In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.

Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.@@@0 -To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced "Nau-day") want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a "newbie" from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the "Probies" at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.

Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about "Probies." It is that they are either "White Clouds" or "Black Clouds," meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the "Probie." The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a "White Cloud." After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....

September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives.

Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse.

What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this "Probie" has proven himself.

Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom.

@@@1 -Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.@@@0 -This was the most visually stunning, moving, amazing and incredible story I've ever experienced. Quite frankly, even those adjectives just cannot describe it. I can't just choose one scene that stood out for me. I suppose if I had to list a few it would be the reactions of the fireman to the crashing sound of jumping victims; the reaction of people trapped in the elevator, who were unaware of what was going on, as they finally emerge to the horrific scene; the shock and disbelief of the onlookers; and finally the silence.

On that day, and even now, I am reminded of Star Wars (1977). Obi-Wan says, `I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.' It is amazing how it is so accurate in its description. There was truly a disturbance in the Force.

This documentary vividly reveals this disturbance. The feelings are so incredibly visual. The anger, the frustration, the shock, the fear, the exhaustion, and the realization of its very magnitude. It's all there. Not a thing is missed.

This is a powerful and most moving documentary and well deserving of the Emmy. Not just because it documents 9/11 but because it is simply everything it should be.

If you plan to watch, be sure to grab a box of tissues. You'll need them. I know that I did.@@@1 -This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.

I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.

The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.

The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.

I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.

I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.@@@0 -To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.

IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.

I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.

How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.

jf@@@1 -Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."

Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."

I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.

There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.

Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.@@@0 -I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour.@@@1 -Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10@@@0 -Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary.....@@@1 -I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.

What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.@@@0 -Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.@@@1 -After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.@@@0 -**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**

(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective.

In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together.

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter.

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion.

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them.

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.@@@1 -I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).

I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).

"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.@@@0 -9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).

In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.

The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.

The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?

This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.

I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?

There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?

There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying.@@@1 -This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.@@@0 -It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.

No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.

I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.

The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.

Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.

We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.

Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7.@@@1 -In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.@@@0 -I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!@@@1 -The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.@@@0 -"9/11," hosted by Robert DeNiro, presents footage from outside and inside the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001.

Never too grisly and gory, yet powerful and moving. "9/11" is a real treat. Anyone not moved by this television show is immune to anything.

5/5 stars --

@@@1 -This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)

What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.

What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)

What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)

What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,

What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.

I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.

I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.

Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"@@@0 -My roommate had bought this documentary and invited me to watch it with her. She's from China and only heard so much about 9/11 and wanted to know the cold hard truth and she wanted me to tell her more after the documentary. I felt awful watching this documentary, it was like reliving the nightmare and it still brings tears to my eyes.

But I'm extremely grateful that I watched this documentary, because on the day of September 11th, I'm sure we all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard, all of us could only think certain questions: "Why?", "How?", "What's going on?", "Oh, my God!". Almost all the Americans were grateful for the brave firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save others. But I don't think we thought about what they were really going though. This wasn't actually supposed to be a documentary about 9/11, the cameraman was just filming a typical day on the job and they just happened to be a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers and got everything, outside and in, on tape.

On Sep. 11th, I thought to myself "It's OK, the policemen and firemen will get the people out that survived". To be honest, I thought it was an accident, I was in my junior year of high school and getting changed from gym and getting ready to go to my science class. Someone came into the locker room shouting "Some building just got bombed in New York!", we all got dressed quickly and ran to our classrooms as we watched the first tower burning on TV. Not only 15 seconds later live on TV does the second plane crash into the other World Trade Center and we knew this was no accident. A few minutes later, we heard about the Pentagon and that there was a plane headed for Chicago but was shot down. So many thoughts ran through our heads and I kept on thinking "What are the firemen and policemen going to do?". But it's procedure to them I thought, they'll know what to do.

The first tower collapsed, we knew it, so many lives are now gone, the second tower crashed, things would never be the same. Those firemen in this documentary showed courage, confusion, and strength, the real raw human emotions. They didn't know what to do, they were just as scarred as those other people who were in the towers. They heard the bodies collapsing on the ground from people jumping out the windows. And here I was in a classroom just crying seeing all that was going on on TV. I was amazed with this film and just wanted to go to New York and tell them how grateful all the Americans were for their help. I know they feel like they were just doing their job, but they did more, they were hero's. Every day after Sep. 11th for 3 weeks they kept on digging knowing that there were no survivors, but they kept on hoping and praying. May God bless their kind and brave hearts.

As for my roommate she was crying and admitted this was her first time crying at these attacks. She got to see the truth of what had happened that tragic day. She asked "Why?". I didn't know what to say, it breaks my heart that people can be that evil. "It sounds clique', but it was a normal day for everyone" one of the firemen said in the documentary. No one expected this to happen. Not like that, those people in the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon or the planes that were hijacked, they were just doing their job, happen to be there, or even just was there for a second passing by. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered, and those hijackers did it with a song in their heart. Then seeing in the middle east all the people celebrating, why do people do this? They celebrated death and the lose of: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why?

So, thanks to those people for making this documentary. You truly think about the firemen, policemen, and the troops in Iraq and it keeps your hope up that there are good people in this world. Thank you to all those people, you are our heroes.

10/10@@@1 -This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.

Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.

The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.

Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.

@@@0 -I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.

Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.

While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.

What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.

If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).

9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this.@@@1 -This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.@@@0 -I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.

It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.

A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.

Regards,@@@1 -First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).@@@0 -It's a good movie maybe I like it because it was filmed here in PR. The actors did a good performance and not only did the girls be girlish but they were good in fighting so it was awsome! The guy is cute too so it's a good match if you want to the guy or the girls.@@@1 -I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.@@@0 -Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!@@@1 -A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.

In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.

The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.

Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.

Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.

The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.

If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.

In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.@@@0 -A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels.@@@1 -Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.

The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.

Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.@@@0 -Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT@@@1 -Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.@@@0 -I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named "Once Upon a Crime...". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a "great" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected.@@@1 -This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story – I do not understand what they are there for – they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.

Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt – shudder – is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it – but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.

As for the rest of the plot – the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back – yawn - or Karl – who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece – although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.

By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!@@@0 -I love Monte Carlo and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought everyone was very good. I was not familiar with Richard Lewis, I thought he made his character (Julian Peters) very personable, funny and attractive. Sean Young was very good as the befuddled rejected girl with a heart of gold. George Hamilton was charming and the perfect Italian gigolo. John Candy has a field day as the bon vivant. James Belushi is hysterical as a total jerk. Cybill Shepard gave a very sweet performance as a nice vulnerable ignored housewife. Delightful ensemble cast. Lots of talent, clever script, lots going on and beautiful locations. Just a nice pick me up for a dreary day. Especially in the winter when a trip to Europe is not anywhere on your horizon.@@@1 -I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.@@@0 -Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.@@@1 -This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!@@@0 -With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.@@@1 -Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.@@@0 -This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!!@@@1 -Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.@@@0 -John Candy's Performance in Once Upon A Crime is possibly his best ever. It's been My Favourite Movie since it came out. I Spent 5 Years searching for it. That's How Good It Is. If You Disagree, well, that's your opinion. Enjoy The Movie.@@@1 -The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.@@@0 -I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!@@@1 -I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.@@@0 -...about the importance of being young, having friends, and most of all enjoying life. Through the experience of four friends, Ligabue shows to the audience how life was back in the 70's in a small italian village. the four carachters represent the four different aspects of human behavior; also the drug experience is well represented.@@@1 -What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.@@@0 -Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch.@@@1 -This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!@@@0 -"Radiofreccia" is still a good surprise in Italian cinema. The film is based on a book of Italian songwriter Luciano Ligabue, who also directs the movie and writes the music score -of course.

The film is a portrait of north Italian province life, in the Emilia Romagna region. We're in 1975, the time of the first free radios -one of the boys of the movie creates "Radioraptus". Youth wishes, friendship, love, sex, individual dramas and unemployment are among the themes, but the film speaks also about drugs -Freccia, the main character, is a victim of heroin slavery.

Without being boring and moralist, the story flows very well; the spontaneity of actors is strong and the way of directing as well. Obviously Luciano "Liga" Ligabue is neither Fellini nor a movie professional, first of all he's a musician. But he succeeds in making a good product. Unfortunately he'll not repeat the success with his second movie "Da zero a dieci" -not good at all.

In "Radiofreccia" actors are generally not very famous, the only star is Stefano Accorsi -one of the most popular young Italian actors. See in a small role another Italian songwriter -Francesco Guccini, he's the nice communist barman and football trainer!@@@1 -When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.@@@0 -Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.@@@1 -Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.@@@0 -Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great.@@@1 -Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.@@@0 -A classic cartoon, always enjoyable and funny. It has an interesting plot complete with lovable characters. Road Rovers is a show worth seeing, it is a short 13 episodes, and if you can ever manage a chance to see it, you should. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. I think Warner Brothers Studios should release a DVD that contains all 13 episodes. I would definitely buy it if they did, and if they do, you should buy it too. if you have kids who like dogs, they will love road rovers! Road Rovers should have gotten more attention while it was being aired, it was definitely an original and very special show that should have been appreciated much more than it was.@@@1 -I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.

For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.

For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.

A very poor 4/10.@@@0 -This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.@@@1 -Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.

The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.@@@0 -Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.

I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them@@@1 -Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time.@@@0 -The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again.@@@1 -In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.@@@0 -Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.

The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.

Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.

7/10@@@1 -the only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.@@@0 -I enjoyed this movie. Haven't seen Andy Griffith in ages and felt he fit this role perfectly. I've associated him with comedy but am pleased to see that he's versatile.

I wasn't troubled that Dotty's "anxiety disorder" may not have been verbatim from a psychiatric textbook. There are zillions of whatever-phobias and neuroses, and these can take on a broad variety of quantitative and qualitative forms. She is clearly a sensitive with extra-sensory powers as was understood by the local Indians but not by any Anglos. It is not surprising that this character is vulnerable and nominally eccentric.

Although this is taken to be a light "family movie", it is actually more sophisticated than it seems. Also, Hiram's twist at the end came as a pleasant surprise to me and tied all the preceding action together in a bundle. It's fun to contemplate the possibility of such spiritual guidance.@@@1 -I have seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me!@@@0 -Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role best in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--TAKE IT.@@@1 -It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.

Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.

Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.

Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.@@@0 -I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing.@@@1 -Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.@@@0 -me and my sister use to rent this every time we got movies and our parents would get so mad at so (but they let us anyways) and I love it...I can't find anyone that lives near me that knows what I am talking about...I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that loved this movie...I wish i could find this on DVD somewhere!! I would love to watch this now just bc I loved it so much as a little kid...and I'm 15 now!!! I remember so much about it...thats where I got the little bunny fufu song from and all my friends know the song but not the movie!! I think the little girl got there by sliding down the slide on her little playground thing@@@1 -How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.@@@0 -So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons.@@@1 -Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.

The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.

Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.@@@0 -Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye.@@@1 -And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.

There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.

What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.

The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.

In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?@@@0 -When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this.@@@1 -If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work.@@@0 -Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ("White Christmas"), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs – Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas – head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's "The Money Pit", and again last year with Ice Cube's "Are We Done Yet?". One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.

The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.

With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ("Cole…Bill Cole"), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, "The House of Tomorrow", is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras.@@@1 -Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.

Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.@@@0 -This incredibly formulaic flick from the "Walker, Texas Ranger" squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of "Walker, Texas Ranger"), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10@@@1 -First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.

However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.

In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast@@@0 -A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.

@@@1 -Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!@@@0 -Good show, very entertaining. Good marshal arts acting. Good story plot. The entire main crew did a nice job from Robert Urich, to Chuck, Norris, Jennifer Tung, and especially a BIG hand to Judson Mills. An especially fine tribute to Robert Urich, in his latter days. A GREAT ! actor who will be truly missed.@@@1 -this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife@@@0 -There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.

@@@1 -I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.

Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.@@@0 -I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie!@@@1 -This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.@@@0 -Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10.@@@1 -Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.@@@0 -If you're a a fan of either or both Chuck Norris & Judson Mills then this is the movie to see.It has a lot of adventure in it.It is a great follow up to President's Man.The chemistry between the main three stars(Chuck Norris,Judson Mills,Jennifer Tung)is incredible.My personal opinion.This movie along with the original,has turned out so well,that the networks should consider turning it into a regular series.If you've seen President's Man,i recommend this movie for you.If you've seen President's Man:A Line In The Sand but you haven't seen President's Man,then let me suggest that you do.You will not be disappointed with either one.@@@1 -This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.

Rating: 1 / 10.@@@0 -Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.@@@1 -There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...

Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.@@@0 -First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic.@@@1 -Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.

This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.

So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.@@@0 -Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.

Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.

It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.

Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.

I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.

Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.

For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend.@@@1 -This movie is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.

There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.

If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.

A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see this movie.@@@0 -Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since.

Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.

The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.

A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.

Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn.@@@1 -I feel like I'm the only kid in town who was annoyed by Branagh's performance. He is a fine actor by most accounts, but he simply could not pull off the Southern accent. I mean, it was deplorable. It was as if he was trying too hard to be a Yank. One of the previous reviewers questioned why U.S. actors were not cast in this film. I second that notion. It's wonderful when actors/actresses wish to expand their horizons, but it's another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. Maybe it was Altman, but he's a such a great director...

Well, I really don't want to bash Branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. Everybody deserves to screw up here and there. But it is hard to watch something so annoying that you'd rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through The Gingerbread Man.@@@0 -Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.@@@1 -If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys:

1. In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...?

2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...

3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.

4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.

Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...

Only for zombie completists.@@@0 -This movie is far better than the original The Jerk. I would highly recommend it to anyone who like quirky humor. We have incorporated almost as many lines from this movie into our daytime discourse as we have from Monty Python.

The card game with the hobos and then with Mr. Suicide. The scene at the dinner table and his distaste for turtle soup. The original The Jerk was too choreographed ans staged. While I like Steve Martin, he seemed like he was trying to hard. The Jerk Too is a spoof and will be enjoyed by anyone. The Jerk Too is family friendly unlike the original The Jerk.@@@1 -What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, "Who put Shaq in this movie???" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I "wish" this movie would go away.@@@0 -Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this "Marty Feldman" thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it.@@@1 -Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.@@@0 -I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.

First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.

Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.

I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime.@@@1 -Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).

This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.@@@0 -I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.@@@1 -OK so after watching this invigorating movie and wasting an hour and so many minutes off my life here is the basic summary: Genie comes out of ghetto boom box, gives this kid with shaggy hair 3 wishes, the kid wastes his wishes on i forget what, shaq sucks at rapping, and i guess thats it.

So mainly I laughed, I cried......but mainly I laughed at the shear comedy that came from the wonderful acting skills of an nba player/rapper and boy with shaggy hair.

I highly recommend this movie for college kids sitting around drinking some beers with their close friends and are in serious need of a good laugh.

I'm going to give it a 3 out of 10 only b/c the movie is based off of 3 magical wishes.

If I had 3 wishes one would be to erase this horrible movie and for everyone to pretend like Hollywood didn't waste money on making this.@@@0 -Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.

PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret.@@@1 -Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'!

The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.

Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.

As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.

So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation!

In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!

Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!

By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish.@@@0 -I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.@@@1 -The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".@@@0 -I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.

Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator.@@@1 -If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.@@@0 -I have just seen this film, and fallen in love with it. There is a little bit of something for everyone, and its a particular free for all when it comes to the romance between Lachlan and Lil. When they are on the beach, I nearly cried... there is the unspoken realization that time is the most precious commodity and it is most evident when they are together. This idea taken from several angles, from marriage to sibblings to finding love in the least conventional of places. The film almost makes you long for that kind of desperation when you know that tomorrow could very well be your last. Crowe was particularly wonderful in his role of Lachlan. I've always had a soft spot for the accent, but I nearly melted with his portrayal of his character. The way this film was shot is also beautiful, with the music, backdrop of the open fields, and superb acting. All together, this is a wonderful film that tugs at all of human emotions.@@@1 -This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.@@@0 -I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story.@@@1 -i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.

The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.

The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.

Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.@@@0 -Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.@@@1 -This is the worst film I have ever seen.I was watching this film with some friends and after 40 minutes we had enough. The plot was bad and there wasn't a single likeable character.I could get more entertainment watching static. I gave this movie a 1 only because the scale didn't go into negative numbers. Avoid this movie at all costs.@@@0 -Movie "comedies" nowadays are generally 100 minutes of toilet humor, foul language, and groin-kicking. Modern comedies appeal to the lowest common denominator, the undemanding and slow of brain. Sure, an occasional good comedy will come along, but they're becoming rarer all the time.

"Mr. Blandings Buildings his Dream House" shows what 1940s Hollywood was capable of, and it's just screamingly funny. Jim and Muriel Blandings (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) decide to build a house in the Connecticut suburbs. The film follows their story, beginning with house hunting trips, the house's riotous construction, all the way to the finished home--with its "zuzz-zuzz water softener".

Grant and Loy are perfect for their roles, of course (Grant is particularly funny as he watches the house's costs zoom out of control). However, the film is stolen by the Blandings' wise attorney, played to perfection by Melvyn Douglas. Managing to steal every scene he's in, Douglas is understatedly hilarious while he watches the Blandings lurch from crisis to crisis. Reginald Denny as the Blandings' harried architect and Harry Shannon as the crusty old water well driller are also wonderful.

I've watched this movie numerous times and it always makes me laugh. I think it's a good film to watch when you need a lift, whether you're building a house or not.@@@1 -How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.

Patrick Watson@@@0 -Very nicely done movie. It does stay in your memory. Better billed as a romance than flying or war, altho the flying parts are realistic and almost error free. Flying buffs like myself will enjoy this movie even if attracted by the airplanes, unless they have no sensitivity or have never been in love.

Fun watching early Crowe. He is good and exudes charm. His reading of "High Flight" is superb.

cheers, Boom@@@1 -There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.@@@0 -This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.

Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare.@@@1 -This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.@@@0 -Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say "Keko Mask: Unknown" while the actor names are listed!

The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: "I've never seen such a beautiful vagina" and "Now I can die in peace." This film is totally fantastic!!

There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says "Hey there's no fog in it!" I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.

This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal?@@@1 -What a pathetic movie.

I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.

Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.

Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.@@@0 -I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?@@@1 -The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said "Uh oh, this is running too long," and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it.@@@0 -Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.

The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.@@@1 -As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment@@@0 -Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick!@@@1 -I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.@@@0 -no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.@@@1 -Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.@@@0 -Well this movie was probobly one of the funniest scary movie i have ever seen. The effects are so bad you just have to laugh, and the acting, well lets say its no mel gibson. But Gary Browning who plays an police officer is so damn bad, he becomes good. I dont know how but he him self makes this movie a 10. You must see it if your in to horror/slash movies cause its bloody and funny at the same time. Killer movie.@@@1 -This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.

This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.

But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.@@@0 -Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.

Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!

Best lines in the movie:

Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...

Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.

Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!

LOL!@@@1 -Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.@@@0 -Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie "san pedro, California" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach "Queen Mary" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor@@@1 -I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.@@@0 -One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.

Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.

A great look at life in the late 40's.

@@@1 -There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.@@@0 -I borrowed this movie despite its extremely low rating, because I wanted to see how the crew manages to animate the presence of multiple worlds. As a matter of fact, they didn't - at least, so its seems. Some cameo appearance cut rather clumsily into the movie - that's it, this is what the majority of viewers think. However, the surprise comes at the end, and unfortunately then, when probably most of the viewers have already stopped this movie. I was also astonished when I saw that the Brazilian-Portuguese title of this movie means "Voyage into Death". This is THE spoiler.

That this movie is about a young girl who goes ALONE onto this boat (on reasons that are completely unclear), you understand only in the last 5 minutes. When you start the movie with the English title "Haunted Boat" in your head, you clearly think that the cameo appearances of strange figures are the "ghosts". But in reality, this movie is not like most other horror movies told from the distant writer-watcher perspective who can at almost any time differentiate between different levels of reality, it is told from the perspective of the young girl. We see her not alone, but together with the four friends because SHE sees them. We do not see that she is alone. So, the parallel worlds are not the cameo appearances flickering into the picture-stream, but the main story! We have at least two parallel worlds: The world in which the girl is and the world in which the 4 friends are. An intrusion of a third world is probably the young man with the medical skills who comes for a short time on the boat.

I cannot get rid of the deep conviction that with this movie, the movie-makers "cheated" an audience of several thousand people by letting them believe that what they have done is more or less a sophomore film-student elaborate with hastily "chosen" pseudo-actors that have met just the night before the start of the shooting in a dump after at least twelve beers. How mistaken can one be! But in addition to this big surprise which one learns only in the very last minutes, the end that follows gives another surprise. The girl is saved by a crew in a helicopter and another boat. When she has recovered from her shock, she visits again the place at the harbor where she ascended the boat together with the four friends. And there they are again! They wave her to them from the boat which has already taken off shore. She jumps into the water, arrives at the boat - and they are away. Miraculously beautiful. It remembers me a bit to the end of a poem by a Rhetoromance writer: When I awoke, I saw Death standing at my bed. But I closed my eyes. When I opened them again - he was gone.@@@1 -What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.

It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.

Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.@@@0 -I also saw this upon its release in '56, and have been struck since then with its final scene. If this is an answer to 'High Noon,' then it's an apt and apposite response. The notion that, as this string is headed, "The town comes together" is a much stronger message than the lonely personal heroism of 'High Noon.' In this theme, 'Concho' is a phenomenal precursor of one my other all-time favorites, 'The Magnificent Seven.' Both Sinatra and Conrad give impressive and convincing performances, especially Sinatra's transformation from bullying kid brother to liberating town savior. I can only hope that at some point all the friends and family on whom over the years I've inflicted my affection for this movie will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves.@@@1 -I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.@@@0 -I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in "From Here To Eternity" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt.@@@1 -Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.

The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.

Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.@@@0 -I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.@@@1 -I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.@@@0 -"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies).@@@1 -This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.@@@0 -Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).

Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.

I savour "moments", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...

Hugely enjoyable.@@@1 -What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.@@@0 -I have rarely emerged from viewing a film with such a warm, happy feeling. I felt as if I had been out with really good friends and had a wonderful time! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting was superb, although I would have to mention Bill Nye in particular as giving an absolutely faultless performance. Bill is an excellent actor and would love to see him in more films. Timothy Spall and Jimmy Nail are also favourites and always love to see them as they give such a solid performance. And Billy Connolly, as always, totally gorgeous. It was a wonderful ensemble performance from all concerned. Such a refreshing experience to see a well-written, superbly acted and good-looking movie.@@@1 -I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!@@@0 -Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.@@@1 -This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison – his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.@@@0 -wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.

i've seen it 3 times so far.

the american audiences are going to love it.@@@1 -That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.

'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.

It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.

All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.@@@0 -I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great.@@@1 -Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.

A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.

I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.

I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been@@@0 -Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.@@@1 -I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievable

WARNING SPOILERISH

It's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.

When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing.

Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.

The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.

As for the ridiculous ending….

In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.

0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.@@@0 -I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :)@@@1 -1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.@@@0 -An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.@@@1 -My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it!

@@@0 -If you like Deep Purple, you will enjoy in this excellent movie with Stephen Rea in main role. The story is about the most famous rock group back there in 70s, Strange Fruits, and they decided to play together again. But, of course, there is going to be lots of problem during theirs concerts. Jimmy Nail and Bill Nighy are great, and song "The Flame Still Burns" is perfect. You have to watch it.@@@1 -Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you.

Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once.

2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.@@@0 -This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie.@@@1 -I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.@@@0 -I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10@@@1 -Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10@@@0 -I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!@@@1 -Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half

hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to

happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their

seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when

the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they

mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill

for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only

got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time.

Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous

hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with

the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one

attractive cast member to remember.@@@0 -I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.@@@1 -"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?

Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.

"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.@@@0 -As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.@@@1 -I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.

Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...

...well anything to be honest@@@0 -I agree with what "veinbreaker" wrote with regards to the "Ahhhh" feeling you get at the end of this movie. I absolutely loved the locations they chose to film, the songs were well written and interesting, especially the psychedelic sounding track on which Hans Matheson sings. It's trippy. Nighy was fab in his role, Nail "nailed" it, Beano was the typical drummer, and Rea kept it together. Bruce Robinson was awesome. Helena was a lovely girlfriend. But I felt Juliet Aubrey's performance was gorgeous. The scenes between Aubrey & Robinson killed me! Perfectly played and the music behind the scene was spot on! Too bad not many more musicians have checked this movie out! They ought to!I've told all my musician friends. great quote by Jimmy Nail's character: "it's supposed to be rock & roll, not the Phantom of the f*****g opera!"@@@1 -The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.

Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'.

You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.@@@0 -I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.

The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.

This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.

And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World."

Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.

Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem.@@@1 -This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.

This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.@@@0 -Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, "The Money Pit".

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see.@@@1 -This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers).

A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".

It's just bad.@@@0 -In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.

One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.

The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too.@@@1 -I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.

WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.

Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.@@@0 -If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!@@@1 -It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.

What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!

How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered.@@@0 -So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all.@@@1 -Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.

The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction.

However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)

Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.

Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)

This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.

The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!

What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.

It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...@@@0 -What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.

Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.

Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.

Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.

It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.

Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work.@@@1 -This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.

Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!@@@0 -This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended..@@@1 -Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.

Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.

The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.

It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.

It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.

I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.

Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.@@@0 -> Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (
> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since.@@@1 -It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.@@@0 -The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.

Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's.@@@1 -Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.@@@0 -I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever!@@@1 -The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.

The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.

As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.@@@0 -...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.

The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.

A small delight, and thanks for the memory.

Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road)@@@1 -By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.@@@0 -This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond.@@@1 -Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.@@@0 -Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr..

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure.@@@1 -I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies", but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.@@@0 -What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye!@@@1 -This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.

Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.

In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.@@@0 -I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.

It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.

I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?

My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience.@@@1 -This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.

I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture.

After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.

After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.

We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly.

The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)

You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.@@@0 -Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties.

How could that happen? What drove me into addiction?

OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce.

Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.

Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in "Love Actually", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is.

Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing "All Over The World", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage.

It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there.

Got Still Crazy... anyone?@@@1 -This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.@@@0 -This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.

Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.

Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.

The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.

Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.

Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.

As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.

The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...

Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...@@@1 -...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.@@@0 -This series could very well be the best Britcom ever, and that is saying a great deal, considering the competitors (Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbours, to name just two).

What made Butterflies so superior, even to the best of the best, is that it did not just exemplify great, classic, classy and intelligent comedy, but it also expanded horizons, reflecting - flawlessly, gently, and at every detail - the great social change that was occurring in Britain at the time.

I remember watching this show as a teenager and being in awe of everything about it. The lifestyle depicted was remarkable in itself. This was the first time I saw real people using cordless phones. And the wardrobe of all the characters was far removed from the goofy seventies attire still seen in North America at the time. Then there were the decors, shop fronts, cars. These people - even the layabout sons, with their philosophical approach to life and epigrammatic humor - were sophisticated. They were examples of the "New Europeans" that would come to have an impact on life and style throughout the world in the coming decade (1980s).

Of course, the premise was strange and fantastic. The idea that someone who was living the suburban dream could be so discontent and restless was revolutionary, particularly to North Americans for whom happiness was always defined as money and things (sure the situation was depicted in American movies and TV, but not with the intensity of Butterflies or the movie Montenegro). And, if the premise was not surprising enough, the means by which it was expressed took it to the extreme. A potential affair that was not really about sex, or even romance? Butterflies dazzled many, but it must have left some people smacking their foreheads in disbelief... at the time anyway.

Butterflies turned out to be - in so many ways - prophetic. It documented, ahead of its time - post-modern ennui, all-pervasive lifestyle, the notion of emotional infidelity, and generational disconnect and male discontent (portrayed perfectly by the strained father-son relationships). It is too bad this series has not been rediscovered in a big way, and all those involved given credit for creating a meaningful snapshot of a certain time and place, and foreseeing all the slickness and angst that was to come.@@@1 -Cradle of Fear

This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".

This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge.

The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play.

As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.

What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.

Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.@@@0 -Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)@@@1 -This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?@@@0 -British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type.

The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.

The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies.@@@1 -Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.

But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.

Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.

To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.

My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.@@@0 -Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)@@@1 -Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.@@@0 -enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there.@@@1 -I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................@@@0 -Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right.@@@1 -This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha.@@@0 -This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10.@@@1 -Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.@@@0 -This isn't as violent as I was expecting which makes the violent scenes appear all the more brutal and effective.

There are a lot of twists and turns and back stabbing and double crossing all the way through the film making it hard to know who's side a particular character is on.

The plot is pacey with some good dialogue and character development and gives an interesting view of the workings of the Triad gang it follows.

The violence when it comes is brutal, no guns or martial art scenes with special effects, this is believable in your face violence and for all the dialogue you are never allowed forget that the Triad is a violent criminal organisation.

The ending is surprising but thoroughly consistent and believable.@@@1 -This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.@@@0 -There can be no denying that Hak Se Wui (Election in English) is a well made and well thought out film. The film uses numerous clever pieces of identification all the time playing with modernity yet sticking to tradition – a theme played with throughout the film Where John Woo's Hong Kong films are action packed and over the top in their explosive content as seen in Hard Boiled (1992) and when Hong Kong films do settle down into rhythms of telling the story from the 'bad' point of view, they can sometimes stutter and just become merely unmemorable, a good example being City on Fire (1987).

Election is a film that is memorable for the sheer fact of its unpredictable scenes, spontaneous action and violence that are done in a realistic and tasteful (if that's the right word) manner as well as the clever little 'in pieces' of film-making. It's difficult to spot during the viewing but Election is really constructed in a kind of three act structure: there is the first point of concern involving the actual election and whoever is voted in is voted in – not everyone likes the decision but what the Uncles say, goes. The second act is the retrieving of the ancient baton from China that tradition demands must be present during the inauguration with the final third the aftermath of the inauguration and certain characters coming up with their own ideas on how the Triads should and could be run. Needless to say; certain events and twists occur during each of the three thirds, some are small and immaterial whereas some are much larger and spectacular.

Election does have some faults with the majority coming in the opening third. Trying to kill off time surrounding an election that only takes a few minutes to complete was clearly a hard task for the writers and filmmakers and that shows at numerous points. I got the feeling that a certain scene was just starting to go somewhere before it was interrupted by the police and then everyone gets arrested. This happens a few times: a fight breaks out in a restaurant but the police are there and everyone is arrested; there's a secret meeting about the baton between the Triads but the police show up and everyone gets arrested; some other Triads are having a pre-election talk but the police show up and guess what? You know.

Once the film gets out of that rut that I thought it would, it uses a sacred baton as a plot device to get everybody moving. The baton spawns some good fight scenes such as the chasing of a truck after it's been hotwired, another chase involving a motorbike and a kung-fu fight with a load of melee weapons in a street – the scenes are unpredictable, realistic and violent but like I said, they are in a 'tasteful' manner. Where Election really soars is its attention to that fine detail. When the Triads are in jail, the bars are covered with wire suggesting they're all animals in cages as that's how they behave on the outside when in conflict. Another fine piece of attention to detail is the way the Uncles toast using tea and not alcohol, elevating themselves above other head gangsters who'd use champagne (The Long Good Friday) and also referencing Chinese tradition of drinking tea to celebrate or commemorate.

Election is a good film that is structured well enough to enjoy and a film that has fantastic mise-en-scene as you look at what's going on. Some of the indoor settings and the clothing as well as the buckets of style that is poured on as the search and chase for the baton intensifies. The inauguration is like another short film entirely and very well integrated into the film; hinting at Chinese tradition in the process. I feel the best scene is the ending scene as it sums it up perfectly: two shifty characters fishing and debating the ruling of the Triads all the while remaining realistic, unpredictable and violent: in a tasteful manner, of course.@@@1 -Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.

As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.@@@0 -Election is a Chinese mob movie, or triads in this case. Every two years an election is held to decide on a new leader, and at first it seems a toss up between Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai, or as I know him, "The Other Tony Leung") and Lok (Simon Yam, who was Judge in Full Contact!). Though once Lok wins, Big D refuses to accept the choice and goes to whatever lengths he can to secure recognition as the new leader. Unlike any other Asian film I watch featuring gangsters, this one is not an action movie. It has its bloody moments, when necessary, as in Goodfellas, but it's basically just a really effective drama. There are a lot of characters, which is really hard to keep track of, but I think that plays into the craziness of it all a bit. A 100-year-old baton, which is the symbol of power I mentioned before, changes hands several times before things settle down. And though it may appear that the film ends at the 65 or 70-minute mark, there are still a couple big surprises waiting. Simon Yam was my favorite character here and sort of anchors the picture.

Election was quite the award winner at last year's Hong Kong Film Awards, winning for best actor (Tony Leung), best picture, best director (Johnny To, who did Heroic Trio!!), and best screenplay. It also had nominations for cinematography, editing, film score (which I loved), and three more acting performances (including Yam).@@@1 -I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.

I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors – never!

He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.

Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?

He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.

Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.@@@0 -First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.

In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.

Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.

While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.

Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.

My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more.

Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.@@@1 -LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................

This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................

Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................

Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........

The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................

A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT@@@0 -It might be a little erroneous to open a review by describing a film in terms of other films, but I think it's the best way to give an approximation of the place Election occupies in the gangster genre arena. It works somewhere in between The Godfather and Kinji Fukasaku's yakuza opus The Yakuza Papers (AKA Battles Without Honour and Humanity), in that it is simultaneously both romanticized and realistic, dark and gritty. But it's also a Johnnie To film, and as such it carries the distinct touch of the Hong Kong auteur.

Every two years the HK Triad elects a new boss. Only this time one of the candidates is not overly happy with the result so he decides to take matters into his own hands much to the dismay of the rest of the Triads and the police. That's the story in a nutshell but rest assured it has a lot more going for it than that. As in The Yakuza Papers, there's a great deal of scheming, back-stabbing and forming and switching of allegiances (sometimes all it takes is a phone call - in one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in recent time) which might not necessarily make for deep drama but makes for an interesting plot and good character conflict. Fans of the gangster genre are likely to appreciate it in that aspect. Election is not as action-oriented as one might expect; although it IS violent. And I'm not talking about the glossy, glamour version of Hollywood violence. This is dark and grim. To's camera lingers in the scenes of people being brutalized in ways that reveal both the humanity and inhumanity of the perpetrators and victims; after all violence IS an integral part of us whether we like it or not.

If you're familiar with To's style, then you should know what to expect. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate. The cinematography is great, slick and dark in equal measures, utilizing dark hues (brown, dark green and orange) while the smooth tracking shots add a vibrant quality to it. In the end, Election occupies a peculiar place. It's not exactly a character study and it's not an action-oriented gangster film. It explores a situation (the election and its aftermath), but does so in style, and is both realistic and romanticized (the Triad ceremonies in particular echo of an oriental Godfather).@@@1 -The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.

Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.

With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.@@@0 -This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East.

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.@@@1 -I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ??

**MAY BE SPOILER**

An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.

2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)@@@0 -Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening credits—and a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standards—moderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids.@@@1 -Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!@@@0 -I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!@@@1 -This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...

Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!@@@0 -I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit.@@@1 -With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype.

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness.

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.@@@0 -The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.

The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.

Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...

Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.

Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.

To be continued...@@@1 -A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 – 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!

Just my opinion!

@@@0 -This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family.@@@1 -In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.

Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.

Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.

In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.@@@0 -Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.

Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.

Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.

I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).@@@1 -Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............

The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.@@@0 -Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.

Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful.@@@1 -I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.

In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.

As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832.

At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.

The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully.

The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.

Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.

Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.@@@0 -Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.

To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.

While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.

While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.

This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.

Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.

Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie.@@@1 -Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.@@@0 -This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.@@@1 -Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.@@@0 -

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!@@@1 -I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.@@@0 -Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.@@@1 -Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".@@@0 -I was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.

This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.

The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.

When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film "Stab" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.

WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!

Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.

Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed!@@@1 -What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10@@@0 -I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.@@@1 -This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.@@@0 -Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.@@@1 -This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.

If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.@@@0 -I have been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.

i give cut a 8 out of 10@@@1 -Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character…she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times.

I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd.@@@0 -There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.@@@1 -This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While featuring good actors the movie doesn't live up to the expectations. The most dramatic thing about this movie is the music, which pretty much sums up the movie: compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known-good actors, loud and dramatic music. It doesn't change the fact, that this is a very boring movie to watch. Earned itself a score of 1.@@@0 -It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.@@@1 -This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.@@@0 -"Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.@@@1 -My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie.

yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad...

Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.

*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!@@@0 -This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.

So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight.@@@1 -This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.

Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.@@@0 -This is surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable and well made, with some decent gore!. All the characters are decent, and the story is quite fun, plus Molly Ringwald played the annoying bitch extremely well. I bought this at a pawn shop for a 1$, and it was surprisingly worth it, and the special effects were pretty damn good for the budget, plus I loved the mask the killer wore as it was actually somewhat creepy. The finale was really cool, as I loved how they defeated the killer, and the ending while predictable was very amusing as well, plus all the characters except for Ringwald were surprisingly pretty likable!. It's decently made and written, and I thought it was quite creative and original at times as well, plus some of the death scenes were very impressive. This killer didn't mess around, and I loved it, and Slasher fans(like myself) should really enjoy this film, plus The opening was really wicked too, with them filming the movie!. This is a surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable,and well made, with some decent gore, and I say it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Kimble Rendall does a good! job here with solid camera work, using a creepy setting, good angles and keeping the film at a fast moving pace. The acting is solid!. Molly Ringwald plays the bitch extremely well,and I had troubles feeling sorry for her, after all she was supposed to be the heroine, she turned out better towards the end, but not by much, I'm surprised she decided to do this film, nonetheless she did an excellent job!. Frank Roberts is fantastic as the killer, he is menacing, creepy and had one hell of a mask, and this guy didn't mess around, he was fantastic!. Kylie Minogue plays a bitch very well in her small role. Jessica Napier is cute and does fine as the other heroine. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5@@@1 -This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.@@@0 -for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.@@@1 -In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.

But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.

Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...

And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.

However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.

Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.

2 out of 10@@@0 -Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick "Hot Blooded" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.

When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late.

Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous.@@@1 -When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.

Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about?

The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.

"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap.@@@0 -When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".

Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.@@@1 -I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.@@@0 -A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?

The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.

No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.@@@1 -......this film is pretty awful, the only thing stopping me from giving it a rating of 1 was the fact that I unfortunately have seen worse.

The jungle music, juttering demons, and fluorescent UV style blood/teeth/eyes give it that "awful" look, and the script is dire.....this film is more like a test to see how long you can last before giving up on it. It's also predictable but not in a good way. Nothing this film does is in a good way. I watched it 10 minutes ago and thought I would rant a bit so there you are. (oh and the acting doesn't let the film down, it's also terrible)@@@0 -This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone.@@@1 -This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.

If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.

But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you.@@@0 -What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it.@@@1 -Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.@@@0 -Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.

There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious!@@@1 -Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.@@@0 -Come on people. This movie is better than 4. I can see this happening...wealthy people have done crazier things than this. And it was funny.

I watch a comedy to be entertained, escape from the pressures of the world for a short while, and not to have to take anything too seriously. This movie fully suits that purpose. I judge a movie on its own merits and am not about to compare Surviving Christmas to Blazing Saddles. I watched totally dysfunctional people grow into caring, likable individuals who could easily live down the street from my home. It will remain on my list of "favorite.....must watch for the holiday season". If you just want to have a fun 90 minutes, watch this one.@@@1 -I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.

The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.@@@0 -You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene.@@@1 -I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.@@@0 -What's not to like about this movie? Every year you know that you're going to get one or two yule tide movies during Christmas time and most of them are going to be terrible. This movie is definitely a fresh new idea that was pulled off pretty well. A very funny take on a rich young guy paying a family to simulate a real Christmas for him. What is the good of having money like that if you can't do fun things with it. It was a win-win situation. A regular family gets six figures and a rich guy gets to experience Christmas like he imagined. Only if.

Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) was incredibly difficult to deal with and it was just a riot to see the family reluctantly comply with his absurd demands. It was a fun and funny movie.@@@1 -This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.@@@0 -Its a good thing I rented the movie before seeing the viewer rating from this site. It was a wonderful movie that I will be adding to my Christmas selection. The cast was wonderfully chosen and Ben Affleck plays a good leading role. I would tell viewers who have not seen the movie to go ahead and buy it. I rate it right up there with Christmas vacation. The movie was very funny and well written and Ben plays the eccentric rich executive very well. The things he says and does is just how I would imagine a person with too much money to act. The movie is much funnier than The Santa Claus and Christmas With The Kranks. Plus it has a good story line and teaches the true meaning of Christmas which is you can't buy love with money.@@@1 -This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.

Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.@@@0 -I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.

This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".

If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out.@@@1 -"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.

Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!

Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...@@@0 -Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies.@@@1 -I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.

It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.

A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.

@@@0 -At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too.@@@1 -i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.

i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.

i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.

it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.

i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.

i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.

spoilers ahead...

it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.

the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.

rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.

i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.@@@0 -What would you expect from a film titled 'Surviving Christmas'and presented as 'festive fun', something like Ghandi or English patient? There are lots of things I love about this film, it's funny, it is very well cast and it is superbly written. I came to the film as a Kaplan/Elfort fan but was dubious when I read the plot, it sounded ridiculous. But the film doesn't come across like that because Affleck (as Drew Latham) plays his part perfectly, one minute a child-like adult, the next a mature man who realises he has gained everything in life apart from what he really wants. In fact we see Latham grow up in this film, when he encounters the problems of those he envies and realises that their lives are not so good, he sees that his own lot is not so bad.

This film has fewer weak or dud scenes than many other comedies I have seen. Comedy is so much harder than any other type of drama, it either works or it doesn't and very few comedy writers get it correct every time.I particularly loved the drama scene, where the family take to reading parts written by Latham . The pleasure is in the reaction of Tom Valco (James Gandolfini) and the comments of Brian Valco (Josh Zuckerman). It is the dilemma of the greedy Tom Valco who has to bite his tongue, wear silly hats or sing to the Christmas tree in order to earn the prize money that keeps the film moving along well.

The addition of daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) into the story brings a delightful romantic angle, and why not in a Christmas film? Of course its corny and contrived; he's rich and handsome, she's beautiful and single, and so inevitably her and Afflect end up falling over together in the snow and finding themselves face to face. Great! One thing I would have liked was more use of festive music to boost the atmosphere but I can't really complain. I got what I wanted.@@@1 -This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion.@@@0 -This movie isn't as bad as I heard. It was enjoyable, funny and I love that is revolves around the holiday season. It totally has me in the mood to Christmas shop and listen to holiday music. When this movie comes out on DVD it will take the place of Christmas Vacation in my collection. It will be a movie to watch every year after Thanksgiving to get me in the mood for the best time of the year. I heard that Ben's character was a bit crazy but I think it just adds to the movie and why be so serious all the time. Take it for what is it, a Christmas comedy with a love twist. I enjoyed it. No, it isn't Titanic and it won't make your heart pound with anticipation but it will bring on a laugh or two. So go laugh and have a good time:)@@@1 -If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great "Rondo" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???

Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving.@@@0 -I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh!@@@1 -Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.@@@0 -This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it "builds" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic.@@@1 -What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?

Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film.@@@0 -`Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself.@@@1 -Pros: Nothing

Cons: Everything

Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.

Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.

My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.

My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)@@@0 +This film, was one of my childhood favorites and I must say that, unlike some other films I liked in that period The Thief of Bagdad has held on to it's quality while I grew up. This is not merely a film to be enjoyed by children, it can be watched and enjoyed by adults as well. The only drawback there is, is that one can not see past the ‘bad' effects (compared to the effects nowadays) like one could when one was a child. I remembered nothing of those effects, of course it had been about ten years since I'd seen this film, when I was about eleven years old. Who then watches effects? One only seeks good stories and entertainment and this is exactly what this film provides. In my mind this film is one of the first great adventure films of the 20th century. Coming to think of it I feel like the Indiana Jones films are quite a like this film. There is comedy, romance and adventure all in one, which creates a wonderful mixture that will capture you from the beginning until the end and although the film is old and the music and style of the films is clearly not modern, it succeeds in not being dusty and old. All of that is mainly due to the great story, the good directing and the good acting performances of the actors. In that department Sabu (as Abu) and Conrad Veidt (as Jaffar) stand out, providing the comedic and the chilling elements of the film for the most part. Great film and although an 'oldie', definitely a ‘goldie'. I hope someone has the brain and guts to release this one on DVD someday.

8 out of 10@@@1 +The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".

This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.

**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago@@@0 +Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.

As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.

Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.

The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.

Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.

The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.

*************************

Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age.@@@1 +Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.

Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids???

Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute.

On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.

I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.

I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.@@@0 +The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over.@@@1 +I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.@@@0 +I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".

It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.

10/10@@@1 +If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.@@@0 +-The movie tells the tale of a prince whose life is wonderful, but after an evil wizard tells him to go into town disguised as a beggar the wizard then locks up the prince and soon becomes the shadow ruler of Baghdad. the jailed prince meets a thief called Abu who helps him escape the jail and head to a town called Basra where he meets a princess who he falls madly in love with, but unbeknown to him the evil wizard Jafa is also in love with the princess and tries to convince her father to allow him to marry her. Jafa soon learns that the prince is trying to win the girls heart so he makes him blind and turns Abu into a dog. This leads to the prince and Abu going off on an adventure to find a way to defeat Jafa, restore peace to Baghdad and marry the princess. during their journey they encounter everything from sarcastic Genies that takes Abu on a flight through the clouds, a giant spider that's really hungry, and a flying horse that probably gives birth to one of the most beautiful sequence these old eyes of mine have ever seen.

-This is a pure fantasy movie from start to finish it has flying horses, genies, flying carpets, and wizards that can actually do magic instead of just hit people with their staffs. It doesn't have any cheesy moments and the love story isn't a waste of time. The production designs are just stunning in this movie. From the palaces to the different dangerous traps that the heroes encounter. Even though this movie is over 40 years old, the production design is far better than most of the crap that gets tacked on in today's cinema. The music and songs are also well done. Anyone who sees it will no doubt hail, "I want to be a sailor sailing on the seas" as one of the great musical moments in movies. I'm usually not a huge fan of singing in movies since I find them about as enjoyable as doing my taxes but I'll be more than happy to make an exception for this movie.

-What sells the movie for me is the sheer fact that you get to see things you don't see in everyday life which is also the same reason why I love stuff like "Two Towers" and "Silent Hill". Way before today's modern fantasy movie came along with their realistic CGI to blow our minds there was this movie which blew your mind without having green screen scattered all over the place. One of my favorite shots in "Two Towers" is the one where we see the trolls opening the Black Gates, the main appeal of that shot for me was seeing these great fantasy beings doing what is essentially manual labor, and that's what I love about the Genie and other creatures in the movie. They're just there trying to make a living just like everyone else which gives them a real feel even though they're all just fantasy beings.

-It's literally impossible to watch this movie and not notice where the makers of "Aladdin" got their inspiration. The characters from this movie are pretty much the same characters in that movie from the talkative Genie right down to the flying carpet. It's not an entirely bad thing in my eyes since it's nice to know that I'm not the only one on the planet that has a deep passionate love for this amazing movie. I first saw this as a kid in the motherland and thought it was the greatest thing in the world and upon watching it again last week I still think it's amazing. That's a true testament that a great movie can withstand the test of time. Sure, the effects look a wee bit outdated and cheesy but it was made way back in the 40's so give it a break. Not everything looks outdated though since most of the stuff can still hold its own today when scrutinized under today's standard.

-If you ever wanted to see a live action version of "Aladdin" then you should get your wish with this but the angry cynical bunch will probably do good in avoiding this since this won't be their cup of tea.@@@1 +As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?@@@0 +Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.@@@1 +I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.

This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those "festival films" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it "different", therefore good.

Bad film-making is not "different", it's just bad film-making.@@@0 +The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.

..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making!@@@1 +This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.

I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.

Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".

In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.

There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.@@@0 +An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time.@@@1 +It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.

I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.@@@0 +The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.@@@1 +this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type

they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,

Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get

as always

jay harris@@@0 +I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!@@@1 +There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!@@@0 +I first discovered Alexander Korda's (1940) Fantasy, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD in the early 1950's on a re-issue billed as "The Wonder Show of the Century!" Both Korda Technicolor films, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and JUNGLE BOOK were shown on one never to be forgotten program. The music of Miklos Rozsa enhanced both films. The Technicolor in each was incredibly beautiful! THE THIEF OF BAGDAD has remained on my list as the best fantasy film ever made. As the years passed, it became more difficult to enjoy the film's color in the way it had originally been presented in. True Technicolor gave way to a Eastman Color process in the middle 1950's. Both Kino and Samuel Goldwyn reissued the film both theatrically and on video. But the Eastman Color prints were more pastel in nature and muted the vibrancy of the original Technicolor. The Laser Disc release of this title also has the pastel look to it -- nice, but not as it should be. NOW comes the M-G-M DVD (3 Dec 2002) issue. THE THIEF OF BAGDAD again has the wonderful Technicolor look to it on a DVD that is nothing short of STUNNING!!! It was so exciting to see it like this once again that after viewing the DVD once, I watched it a second time. The only "Extras" are a Spanish Dubbed version, Sub-Titles in both English & Spanish, and a beautifully done original theatrical trailer. Thank you M-G-M for this EXCEPTIONAL DVD release. Now, one can only hope that Korda's FOUR FEATHERS and a restored version of Korda's JUNGLE BOOK (to replace to poor public domain prints in circulation) will soon follow on DVD.@@@1 +This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.@@@0 +Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie.@@@1 +2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.

I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.

I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.

This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.

You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.

In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.

Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.

Not that anything else was really working anyway.

The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.@@@0 +Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way.@@@1 +Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.

I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.@@@0 +"The Thief of Bagdad" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights...

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!@@@1 +This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.

Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!

Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.

If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.

This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.

IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.

Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.

Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.

Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.

Don't say you weren't warned.@@@0 +The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.

No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.

Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.

Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)

Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."

This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.

"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.

9/10.@@@1 +THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!

This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).@@@0 +I have to agree with MR. Caruso Jr Lanza,s was the finest voice god had to offer if only he could have found the courage to go for broke leave Hollywood and head for the opera he could have been the American Caruso everyone says he could have been but in any case he is a fantastic introduction to the art form no bones about it and if thats the way its gonna be so be it. see the film you'll see why Mr Lanza still come up in discussion even in my house. Someone says Pavarotti i say MARIO LANZA.As for the film itself when will it be on DVD they must have it restored and VHS isn't good enough but this should also be the only Lanza film put on DVD the others are down right bad and boring .@@@1 +Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:

1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.

The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".

If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.

Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...@@@0 +Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.

The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.

Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.

Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.

Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.

The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background.

His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.

Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.

Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.

Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca.

Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely.@@@1 +How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.

Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.

It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...

It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.

It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...

And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.@@@0 +The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.@@@1 +OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.@@@0 +This is a most handsome film. The color photography is beautiful as it shows the lavishness of the Metropolitan Opera House in brilliant color. Other indoor scenes at various mansions, etc are equally brilliant. As for the music, what more can be said other than that Lanza's voice was at its' peak as he sang so many of the worlds' best known and beloved arias. The marvelous Dorothy Kirsten is also a joy as her soprano voice blends with that of Lanza in delightful harmony. Of course, Hollywood took their customary liberties with the life story of Caruso. There is precious little in the story line that relates to actual events. For example, the facts relating to his death are totally fabricated and bear no relationship to the truth. There are some very good web sites that tell the true story of Caruso and contain several pictures of him. These web sites can be located by using any good search engine. There are also several books available concerning his life history. But, the fictional story line does nothing to mar this beautiful film. The voices of Lanza, Kirsten, and the chorus members are the real stars of this movie. Enjoy, I know that I sure did.@@@1 +I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)@@@0 +Mario Lanza, of course, is "The Great Caruso" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.

The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from "Lucia" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.

In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in "Girl of the Golden West," There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.

Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during "L'Elisir d'amore" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen "suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband," that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.

Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film "Match Point" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in "The Great Caruso" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.

Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same.@@@1 +Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend@@@0 +Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!@@@1 +so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.@@@0 +Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso.

But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.

And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth.

To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film.

His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.

When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.

What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.

Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.

Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.

If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso.@@@1 +i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you@@@0 +THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.@@@1 +This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting.

Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me.

This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.@@@0 +I like it because of my recent personal experience. Especially the ideas that everyone is free and that everything is finite. The characters in the firm did not really enjoy their "real" lives, but they did enjoy themselves, i.e. what they were. The movie did a good job making this simple day a good memory. A good memory includes not only romantic feelings about a beautiful stranger and a beautiful European city, but definitely about the deeper discussion about their values of life. Many movies are like this in terms of discussion of the definitions of life or love or relationships or current problems in life or some sort of those. Before Sunrise dealt with it in a nice way, which makes the viewer pause and think and adjust her breath and go on watching the film. Before Sunrise did not try to instill a specific thought into your head. It just encouraged you to think about some issues in daily life and gave you some alternative possibilities. This made the conversations between the characters interesting, not just typical whining complaints or flowing dumb ideas. You would be still thinking about those issues for yourself and curious about the next line of the story. The end was not quite important after all. You could got something out of it and feel something good or positive about yourself after the movie. Movies are supposed to be enjoyable. This is an enjoyable movie and worth of your time to watch it. I am on a journey too. The movie somehow represented some part of me and answered some of my questions.@@@1 +I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.@@@0 +Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.

This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, "Before Sunrise" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.@@@1 +Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.@@@0 +Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on clichés and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart.@@@1 +Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.@@@0 +I'm not usually a fan of strictly romantic movies but heard this was good. I was stunned. Easily the most romantic thing I've ever seen in my life. Stunning. Brilliant, sweet, funny and full of heart. The chemistry is flawless as is the writing and directing.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are so natural and sweet together you really think they're a couple.

The movies grabs you right away and doesn't let go. You can't look away nor can you stop listening to them. Even the little moments just melt your heart.

This has jumped into the ranks of one of my favourite ever. A masterpiece.@@@1 +The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.@@@0 +An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.

Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.

Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.

The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended.@@@1 +First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.

Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.

Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.

What a sad waste.@@@0 +I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.@@@1 +There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.

That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.

Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.

What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.

Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.

All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.@@@0 +i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa "like dancing about architecture". it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.

10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................@@@1 +I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.

And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!

The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.

1 out of 10.@@@0 +I must admit that at the beginning, I was sort of reticent about watching this movie. I thought it was this stupid, little, romantic film about a French woman who meets in the train an American and decides to visit Vienna with him. I was not actually enchanted about this kind of script, since it continued to make me believe that it is just a movie. Still, I watched it! And I was amazed..."Before Sunrise" is one of the few films who dare to talk in a rather philosophical way, wondering about the fact that in the moment of our birth, we are sentenced to death, or that it is a middling idea that fact that a couple should rest together for eternity, or that, we, humans, can afford sometimes to live in fairy-tales.

The ending was wonderfully chosen (we do not know if they will meet again in six months, at six o'clock, in Vienna's station) -in our optimism, we sincerely hope so. The actors acted in a very good manner, so, that, I began to believe that I, myself could live a love-story just like this.@@@1 +Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.@@@0 +American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.

At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.

Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.

Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.

One of the best romance movies. 9/10@@@1 +The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.@@@0 +the most amazing combination of love and psyche of two young people.presented in the most sublime manner and definitely touches your heart.a rare combination where the sequel surpasses the prequel in both storytelling and intensity of emotions.the movie re affirms your faith in love and pain of separation. the joy of seeing your most beloved is unparalleled and anything can be sacrificed. Ethan and Julie have essayed eternal characters with such simplicity that gives the movie a sheer joy and love to watch. A must see movie for all the people who believe in true love. by far the most romantic(at least one of them) movie of all times.@@@1 +Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.

The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.

The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).

Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.@@@0 +My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.

I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...

On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..

I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful!@@@1 +With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.@@@0 +I managed to catch a late night double feature last night of "Before Sunrise" (1995) and "Before Sunset" (2004), and saw both films in a row, without really having the chance to catch my breath in between or ponder on the meaning of each film separately. After sleeping it over, I have to say that I largely prefer the former over the latter, and I shall explain why.

Before Sunrise introduces us with then young actors, Ethan Hawke (Reality Bites, Dead Poets Society), only 25 at the time of the film's release; and Julie Delpy (the Three Colors trilogy), then 26 (although looking much younger). He is a promiscuous American writer, touring Europe after breaking up with his girlfriend; She is a young French student, on her way home to Paris. They meet on the Budapest-Vienna train and spontaneously decide to get off the train together. The two deeply spiritual and intellectual individuals than spend a whole night together walking the beautifully captured streets of Vienna, exchanging ideals and thoughts and gradually falling on love.

The film has 1990's written all over it: back then, technology was leaping rapidly, the new millennium with all it's hopes and dreams was waiting just around the corner, and young adults like the ones depicted in the film were filled with love of life and passion for the future. The characters of Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy), with all their flaws and inconsistencies (Celine's accent, if by mistake or on purpose, was half American-half French, and it swinged from one spectrum to the other, breaking the character's credibility), were a mirror of the time. Watching the naive couple swallow life with such meaning and excitement, acting all clichéd and romantic yet managing to have the audience fall for them as well, is what really made this movie work for me. The fact that the director doesn't let you know if their relationship continues after the film or not makes it all even more worth while.

All in all, Sunrise is a dreamy stroll through the urban landscapes of Vienna, a well told classical romantic rendezvous, and a film I will definitely return to for further insight sometime in the future.@@@1 +The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.@@@0 +This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.@@@1 +Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****@@@0 +After a chance encounter on the train, a young couple spends a single night strolling the streets of Vienna, discussing life and love. The primary reason to see "Before Sunrise," is to watch a young Julie Delpy deliver her lines. As "Celine," this sexy, brainy, soulful brown-eyed blond is sort of a cross between Brigitte Bardot and Joni Mitchell as they were in their mid-twenties. Risking overstatement, Celine is practically the ideal woman, unusually beautiful and very feminine while being natural, unpretentious, introspective, and selflessly loving. We can easily forgive that she is a bit eccentric and talks a blue streak, for her sincere, intelligent remarks are occasionally penetrating. Further, her varied expressions are nothing short of captivating and she speaks English with a French accent that is very endearing.

If there is a fly in the ointment of this good movie, it would have to be her unkempt and disheveled costar. Ethan Hawke as "Jessie" comes off like a vaguely appealing slob, sort of a Maynard G. Krebs of the nineties. Attempting to appear detached and nonchalant, he sort of drags himself through certain shots. His pants fit poorly, his tee shirt is coming untucked, his wavy dark hair (his most attractive feature) needs a good washing, and someone really should have showed him how to properly trim his youthful goatee. Nevertheless, he is supposed to represent an unwashed youth on a two-week train ride around Europe, so the look he has cultivated is probably pretty genuine. His oft-cynical observations and wry sense of humor seem to impress the unapologetically romantic Celine, although she is occasionally disturbed by the extent of his alienation. When he finally admits to her that he is utterly sick of himself and likes being near her because he feels like a different person in her presence, we know he is getting somewhere.

After blowing their collective funds on a series of cafes, bars, and silly diversions, they agree that because they may never see one another again, they should make the most of it. Jesse bums a bottle of red wine off a sentimental bartender so that he and his newfound lady love may repair to a local park in the middle of the night to lie on the grass, looking up at the moon and the stars and watching the sun come up.

Given his boundless luck in the romance department, it is especially irksome when Jessie, as the very definition of a naive jerk, foolishly allows this wonderful young lady to slip from his grasp. He contents himself with a half-baked plan, quickly devised at the railroad station when he bids her adieu, to reunite at the same spot in half a year. When the appointed time comes, you just know this beautiful and unusual girl will be involved with another, perhaps even married and pregnant. For whatever reason, she probably won't show, while Jesse, who ends up working at Target or (if he's lucky) the local library, will go back to Vienna, desperate to see her again, only to wind up alone.

Despite what for me was a very discouraging conclusion, "Before Sunrise" is a beautiful movie. I highly recommend both it and the sequel, "Before Sunset."@@@1 +the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.@@@0 +When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!!@@@1 +I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.@@@0 +Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D@@@1 +What a bad, bad film!!! I can't believe all the hype that has been lavished on this pretentious, amateurish excuse for a real movie!! I left the theater before the end, stunned by how bad the direction and camera-work of that movie were!! And to read adoring paeans that claim there is truth and reality in this film when all it is in reality is a brazen attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of reviewers and festivals by being cheap and tawdry.

At least this film showed me once and for all that the Sundance Festival has become a complete joke and that being shown here is more a label of bad film-making than anything else.

Avoid at all costs. You'll want your time back! I know I did.@@@0 +This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.

The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.

The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.

This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s!@@@1 +Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.

Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.

No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.

I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10@@@0 +Before Sunrise has many remarkable things going on, almost too many to fit into one review like this, but it's suffice to say that it's one of the most observant character studies of the nineties, maybe even in all of contemporary cinema, to be observant not about love, per-say, so much as it's about a human connection. How does one fall in love at first sight? No one does, at least that's deep down the consensus that Linklater wants to show with his film. And *yet* there is the possibility of as intense a connection, of a bond that can form in those that are young and with many ideas that can be expressed articulately and with a breadth of cynicism and is somehow very tender and true at the same time. Linklater here gives us the story of Celine and Jessie, a French girl and an American boy who get off the same train heading to Vienna, and on the way there start to talking about things, at first arbitrary, then personal (Jessie seeing death for the first time in his great grandfather). Jessie persuades Celine to go along with him on a night out on the 'town', in Vienna, until his plane the next morning.

Before Sunrise gives Jessie and Celine, in the midst of the gorgeous Vienna scenery and locales to go on and on about subjects that have a lot of importance, and in a sense is about the act of having conversations, of what it's like to watch people having one leading into another and another. Here it's often about relationships and commitments, as Jessie and Celine tell stories sometimes somewhat inconsequential, or seemingly so, and another that may tell a lot about their essential qualities. We hear confessions of desires for other loves, or what weren't really loves, of being part of a family or part of an upbringing that may or may not inform how you'll love your life, of what it means to believe or not believe in some religious form, or just to have some connection to any faith and the soul (I loved the bit about the quakers in the church), and sometimes laced with cynicism or skepticism. Jessie may be more responsible for that last part, but what's fascinating about the film is that it's never exactly cynical itself, just commenting upon cynicism that lays in the concerns of men and women at that age of their lives.

Meanwhile, it's always great to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in these roles, where they're not incessantly annoying in that 90s Generation-X mode, but are the kinds of people where if not in the central conceit of the film, which isn't a bad one at all but a necessary one, one might think to find walking along the streets of a city somewhere. The conceit is that of an old romantic picture ala Brief Encounter, only here intimacy is expressed in the central characters either between each other, where sweet asides are actually acceptable ("I have to tell you a secret", Jessie says, and then leans in for a kiss, ho-ho), or in the little moments that pop up with other people along the way. I loved the scene with the poet, where it's very cinematic a thing to suddenly find a random romantic bit player in the midst of a romantic picture with such beautiful words at his disposal, or with the palm reader and how the reactions from Jessie and Celine are that we might share, but really are seeing them do it first-hand. All the while Hawke and Delpy embody the roles interestingly- we can see how neuroses are being formed already for their adult lives- as it may lead off into the future...

Featuring splendid cinematography and a script with an ear for natural wit and a true sense of what it means to have a moment of happiness, however self-contained, as it may lead into something more. Who's to say you can't suddenly be attached to someone, if only for less than 24 hours, and be that much more attached than a married couple? This is perhaps Linklater's thesis, but there's more to it than just that. It's a very dense film, and one that will have me calling back to it repeatedly. One scene especially, which is both cheesy and brilliant is when the two of them are talking 'on the phone' in front of each other mimicking their expositions might go to the other's friend. A+@@@1 +I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.

At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more!

Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.

This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.

If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.@@@0 +This is truly truly one of the best movies about love that I've ever seen. Closely followed by none other than "Before Sunset", which technically isn't another movie at all, since it's about the same two people and the same romance.

This is "love" in the real world. OK, that's only if most people are as intelligent and eloquent as the leads in the movie. Reading the other reviews, it pleases me to know how so many other folks are crazy over dialog-based movies as well. And this is what makes "Before Sunrise" so good. The dialog is perfect. It's so real, so engaging and funny. It's hardly a surprise that Jesse and Celine fall in love, 'coz you fall in love with them at the very same time.

My favorite scene is the one in the coffee shop, where they pretend to phone their best friends, with the other pretending to be said best friend. It's PERFECT. Brings you back to the very moment when you fell in love for the very first time in your life.

I must say that if you have a choice, do watch "Before Sunrise" before watching "Before Sunset". If like me, you watched "Sunset" first, it's hard to shake off the feeling of pity and sadness for the two young lovers throughout the entire show.

Once again, the greatest romantic movie in my books. Wonderful acting, excellent script, and beautiful locations. Young love, at it's best.@@@1 +All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.@@@0 +Richard Linklater's beautifully directed mixture of youthful romance and Paris travelogue is one of the 90's best thinking person's romantic movies. Julie Delpy turns in one of the decade's most engaging performances as the Parisian lass who spends a day with stranger-on-a-train Ethan Hawke. The dialogue (and there is oodles of it) is sometimes meandering and overly precious, but this portrait of two young wannabe-lovers making a romantic, intellectual, and spiritual connection to one another is full of wonderfully amusing, touching and insightful moments.@@@1 +I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.@@@0 +Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman.@@@1 +the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!@@@0 +First let me say that Before Sunrise, like all movies, is NOT a movie for all tastes. It appears some folks are less smart to acknowledge this fact, but it is remarkable to contemplate the kind of outright dislike this small harmless movie generates from some people. For me, like most folks here, Before Sunrise struck a deep chord in me, I was truly stunned, moved, inspired by it. This is a movie that ultimately benefits from more than one viewing. It creates some of the most awesomely unforgettable feelings and emotions you can possibly imagine. It is impossible to imagine this world without ever thinking about the kind of inspirational feelings I got from it.

The movie works as a communion of two fragile souls that are starting to get to know each other. It is very intelligent and inspiring, not so much in how one conversation necessarily ties into the next or the significance of the topics of Jesse and Celine's discussions, but rather the little nuances, the perfectly articulate responses they provoke from each other. It captures an honest, romantic, yet fleeting human emotion that is starting to blossom in the awesomely sublime Viennese milieu; it convinces us that their evanescent relationship might be the greatest compliment in the world. And what happens after that night is open for debate, but I never doubt that they won't each other again.

The facile comments by RockytheBear and the below user are hopeless examples of a doctrinaire dissenter unwilling to accept and respect those who love this movie.

See it and it may change your way of life.@@@1 +This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.

I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.@@@0 +i watched this movie 10 years ago. and have watched it on video an average of once a year since. it's the type of movie that's timeless, because the themes are universal, yet the stories and conversation are so personal. it's also one of the very few movies that capture you from frame one til the credits roll, despite the fact that there are, really, just two (very involving) characters. this owes a lot to the engaging acting by hawke and delpy, who make us believe that they are actually jesse and celine. this is also the first movie i saw that mentioned reality TV, and now, the phenomenon is rampant! i love the way this movie just envelops the audience in its space, and makes you think, however jaded you may be, that you are one of those characters. it also made me want to ride the train around Europe! i have not met anyone who has not been able to relate to this movie. maybe that speaks about myself, my friends, or just the sheer genius of this movie.@@@1 +B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.

"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."

"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."

"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"

Dr Price is the snake expert.

Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.@@@0 +There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.

The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives.@@@1 +I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.

Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.

To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!@@@0 +If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you.@@@1 +Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.@@@0 +I had never heard of this film before a couple of weeks ago, but its concept interested me when I heard it: an American man meets a European woman on his last night in Europe and they spend the night together talking. It sparked my interest, but I never expected it to be this great. Before Sunrise is a masterpiece, and it's also one of the most romantic films on record. To my surprise, it completely lacked the cynicism of the 1990s. It's impossible to really talk too much about it, since there is no real plot, so to speak (although there are plenty of thoroughly interesting things you could talk about; it is sort of like My Dinner With Andre, where there is a conversation, but it's not JUST the conversation that matters), but let me just say, see it. SEE IT!@@@1 +This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.@@@0 +Many of the criticisms on this thread seem to pick a comparison of this film with "The Mortal Storm" or "Casablanca". Everyone is entitled to compare films they choose, but the similarities of "The Mortal Storm" and "Watch On The Rhine" are clearly the problems of refugees threatened by the Nazi juggernaut, while the main comparative point brought out with "Casablanca" is the seeming unjust treatment of Humphrey Bogart in 1943 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, because they chose Paul Lukas instead for the Best Actor Oscar. It does not strike me as totally wrong. Lukas had a good career in film (both here and in England - he is the villain in "The Lady Vanishes"), and this performance was his best one. Bogart had more great performances in him than Rick Blaine (for instance, he was ignored for Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" and Roy Earle in "High Sierra" two years earlier, both of which were first rate performances, and he would not get an Oscar for his greatest performances as Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure Of Sierra Madres", the writer/murder suspect in "In A Lonely Place", and Captain Philip Francis Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" afterward - he got it for Charley in "The African Queen"). I think that Bogie should have got it for the role of Dobbs, but it did not happen. But Lukas was lucky - he got it on the defining performance of his lesser career. Few can claim that.

To me the film to look at with "Watch On The Rhine" is based on another play/script by Hellman, "The Searching Wind". They both look at America's spirit of isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s. "The Searching Wind" is really looking at the whole inter-war period, while "Watch On The Rhine", set in the years just proceeding our entry into World War II, deals with a few weeks of time. Therefore it is better constructed as a play, and more meaningful for it's impact.

The film has many good performances, led by Lukas as the exhausted but determined anti-Nazi fighter/courier, Davis as his loyal wife (wisely keeping her character as low keyed as possible due to Lukas being the center of the play's activities), Coulouris as the selfish, conniving, but ultimately foolish and ineffective Teck, Lucille Watson as the mother of Davis and Geraldine Fitzgerald (as Coulouris' wiser and sadder and fed up wife), and Kurt Katch, who delivers a devastating critique (as the local embassy's Gestapo chief) about Coulouris and others who would deal with the Nazis. It has dialog with bite in it. And what it says is quite true. It also has moments of near poetry. Witness the scene, towards the end, when Coulouris is left alone with Lukas and Davis, and says, "The New World has left the scene to the Old World". Hellman could write very well at times.

Given the strength of the film script and performances I would rate this film highly among World War II films.@@@1 +"Raising Victor Vargas" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to "Pause" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze.

It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?

And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them.

And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy "jerking off". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors?

So "Victor Vargas" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the "fast forward" button.@@@0 +It was by accident that I was scanning the TV channels and found this wonderful film about two beautiful human beings who become attracted to each other in a very innocent and virgin like approach to each other. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) "Tape" '01 and Julie Delpy (Celine) "ER" 94 TV Series (Nicole). This gal and guy, will warm your very heart and soul and make you think deeply into your past relationships and how you really wish you had followed your hearts strings with a guy or gal you deep down loved and lost track of over the years. Jesse and Celine have great conversation, and deep eye contact with a great magnetic explosion between the two of them. I am looking forward to the SEQUEL to this film in 2004 and if you have viewed this film, you will feel the same way.@@@1 +This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.@@@0 +"Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion.@@@1 +I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.@@@0 +I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.

I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.

I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.

i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.

Franck in France@@@1 +I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.

There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.

Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.@@@0 +While traveling by train through Europe, the American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and the French Celine (Julie Delpy) meet each other and decide to spend the night together in Austria. On the next morning, Jesse returns to United States of America, and Celine to Paris.

"Before Sunrise" is one of my favorite romances, indeed one of the most beautiful love stories I have ever seen. It is a low budget movie with a very simple and real storyline, but the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy is perfect, and the dialogs are stunning. The direction is amazing, transmitting the feelings of Celine and Jesse to the viewer. I have just completed my review number 1,000 in IMDb, and I choose "Before Sunrise" for this significant number because it is a very special film for me. I cannot understand why this movie was not nominated to the Oscar, with such a magnificent screenplay, direction and performances. Yesterday I have probably watched this movie for the third or fourth time, and I still love it. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Antes do Amanhecer" ("Before Sunrise")@@@1 +This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie@@@0 +Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...

Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.

In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.

Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance.@@@1 +when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.@@@0 +This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that.@@@1 +$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.

Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.

Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.

The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.

In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".@@@0 +This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!!@@@1 +I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.@@@0 +Forget the campy 'religious' movies that have monopolized the television/film market... this movie has a real feel to it. While it may be deemed as a movie that has cheap emotional draws, it also has that message of forgiveness, and overall good morals. However, I did not like the lighting in this movie... for a movie dealing with such subject matter, it was too bright. I felt it took away from the overall appeal of the movie, which is almost an unforgivable sin, but the recognizable cast, and their performances counteract this oversight.

Definitely worth seeing... buy the DVD.@@@1 +What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film: • The comedy of the situation; • The horror; and • The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?@@@0 +This movie deals with one of the most feared geriatric diseases among the aging today. As one who has encountered a number of families who are facing the potential of Alzheimer's or who are in the formative stages, I would suggest that every health care giver recommend this movie to any family facing the trauma of this disease. The movie is designed primarily to speak to the family of the patient and reaches into the very heart of the struggle. Casting is excellent and the dramatic portrayal is outstanding with a very commanding plot line.@@@1 +I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.@@@0 +I wasn't expecting to be so impacted by this film portraying a family just like the one you'd expect to be living next door. They are ordinary flesh-and-blood people, not like the typical Hollywood fare. They face an all too common problem--debilitating illness. But the story-line grips the heart with a powerful lesson. Casting, script, direction, and acting flow together with a surge that draws the viewer deep into the story. Give this film your full attention and its message will truly inspire.@@@1 +Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead.@@@0 +Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.

"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.

We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.

We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.

The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.

The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.

The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.@@@1 +Raising Victor Vargas fails terribly in what it tries most to be: being real. Unfortunately, there is no reality to this film. The characters and situations feel completely artificial and fake.

The reason? Bad directing. Peter Sollett uses all the wrong tools in his arsenal. It seems Mr. Sollett read somewhere that not lighting his film would give it an authentic feel. Wrong! It just gives it a badly-made feel. Similarly, shaking the camera does not give a documentary style to your film, it just gives the audience a headache and detracts from what's on screen instead of enhance it.

Of course, what's on screen is so painfully fake, as if Mr. Sollett wrote his script with the only goal of trying to look "hip" to his Sundance buddies and show how "edgy" a filmmaker he is.

Overall, the only lasting impression this film leaves you with is what a bad director Mr. Sollett is. Next time, how about taking a few writing and directing classes?@@@0 +This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes@@@1 +The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.@@@0 +A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!

Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.

You don't want to miss this!@@@1 +Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...@@@0 +I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching!@@@1 +What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??

I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.

If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....@@@0 +When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema.

First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.

Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.

Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.

Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?

Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...

A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do

Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live?@@@1 +This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.@@@0 +For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Rånarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliché as the first two thirds of the film.

What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.

One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.

All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10@@@1 +This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.

The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.@@@0 +Even this early in his career, Capra was quite accomplished with his camera-work and his timing. This is a thin story -- and quite predictable at times -- but he gets very good performances out of his cast and has some rather intricate camera moves that involve the viewer intimately. The first part looks like a Cinderella story, though anyone with brains can see that the bottom will fall out of that -- the rich 'prince' will lose his fortune.

Nonetheless, because of his good cast and fast pace, it's easy to get caught up in the clichés. Then the movie does become more original, as the married couple have to find a way to make a living. The ending is very predictable but satisfying. I also want to compliment the title-writing: very witty and fun.@@@1 +I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...@@@0 +That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.

A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.

The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.

If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film.@@@1 +The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.@@@0 +But sadly due to rights issues, that almost certainly will never happen. Transcripts of Joe Bob's commentary on the sub B movies he screened are available on the internet, but they don't quite capture his twang inflected delivery, which was a real hoot. Nowadays, Joe Bob (real name: John Bloom) is confined to doing the supplemental features of such classics as "I Spit On Your Grave" (featuring what some exploitation fans call the greatest gang rape on film of all time), and Jason X, one of the most reviled Friday the 13th sequels of all time (the series was never the same once it left Paramount). All I could think when they canceled it was: "Damn, where else am I going to get my fill of flesh ripping, blonde jokes, and horror trivia every Saturday night? Does this mean I have to get a life now?" Sadly, it does. But there'll always be a place in my horror hungry heart for "Monstervision." Long live the Drive-In!@@@1 +If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?

The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.

This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.

There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.@@@0 +Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.

Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.

I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of "The Swarm" ? q:)

Long live Monstervision!@@@1 +I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.@@@0 +I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"!@@@1 +Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.

The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.

I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.@@@0 +Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.@@@1 +.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.@@@0 +I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.

Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.

Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.

In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :)@@@1 +What else is left to say?

I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.

Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.

The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."

For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.@@@0 +I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE!@@@1 +Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.

It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.

There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.

The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better.

In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.

@@@0 +Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.@@@1 +I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.@@@0 +I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV@@@1 +I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.@@@0 +I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst.

Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.

Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.

These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together.@@@1 +The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.@@@0 +A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.

This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.

In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy.@@@1 +I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.@@@0 +My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.

I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.

I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.

Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.@@@1 +I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.@@@0 +Walking the tightrope between comedy and drama is one of the toughest acts in cinema. How do you get laughs out of other people's misery and not start feeling bad when it goes on too long?

Well, this surprising little gem of a movie will deliver great big laughs, beautiful scenery, and quite a good buzz as well. I particularly like the concept that a trick of history made alcohol legal since white Europeans liked it, and marijuana illegal, since 'those other races' used it...undoubtedly true and exposes a racial side to the marijuana laws so openly flaunted by populations all over the world.

An extraordinary "DVD Extra" commentary...two of them in fact...run thru the whole movie with both the actors, and then again with the writers. I kept seeing things I was sure were not in the first movie, but then realizing how easy it is to miss much of the subtle comedy on the first take. What a hoot! Don't miss it! 9/10 stars@@@1 +

I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!@@@0 +

This is definitely a 'must see' for those who occasionally smoke a reefer in their secret hide-out, trying to avoid being caught by parents, teachers, the police, etc... The protagonist is a lady in her forties, living in her mansion, breeding orchids, and absolutely unaware of the fact that her so-called rich and truthful husband is actually broke and cheating on her. When he all of the sudden dies, she is confronted with the truth. The bailiff comes by to tell her that she is in a huge debt. She doesn't know what to do, until her gardener tells her about the recent success of marijuana in Britain. She decides after some long thinking to get rid of her flowers and start breeding pot instead... The story is quite original, the performances outstanding! I can think of only a few movies that made me laugh more than this one. Still, the melodramatic touch is present. The film is typical British: the jokes aren't vulgar, there is no violence involved. It shouldn't be mentioned that it is recommended to have taken a few draughts before watching 'Saving grace'. It will be so much more fun! Especially the scene with the 2 old ladies in their tea shop is hilarious. I thought my jawbones would burst. 9/10@@@1 +I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.

I don't recommend this movie.@@@0 +This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10@@@1 +I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "…hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" …and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.

When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.

...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.@@@0 +It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10@@@1 +Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.

I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".

Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.

It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".

It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.

A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.

Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.@@@0 +This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve.@@@1 +It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.

And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.

For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.

But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.

Maka@@@0 +A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, "Saving Grace" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.

Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage.

Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in "Saturday Night Fever" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.

Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in "La Femme Nikita", is memorable.

Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10.@@@1 +The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?

In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.

Jason Vanness@@@0 +I love this film. It's one of those I can watch again and again. It is acted well by a good cast that doesn't try too hard to be star studded.

The premise of a newly widowed housewife who turns to selling pot to make ends meet could have been made into an Americanised turd of a movie or an action thriller. Either would have killed the film completely.

The film plays out like an Ealing Comedy with a terrific feel-good factor throughout.

It is worth watching just for the scene with the two old ladies and a box of cornflakes... (no that's not a spoiler!)@@@1 +One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.@@@0 +Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the "strange baseball-like game", well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said "oh yes!" to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time "oh no" also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.@@@1 +I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.@@@0 +Charming doesn't even begin to describe "Saving Grace;" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).

Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.

The most notable quality about "Saving Grace" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.

The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.

Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for "Saving Grace." It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that "Saving Grace" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.

If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.

See "Saving Grace," especially when you're having a bad day.@@@1 +Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.@@@0 +I saw it last night on TV, and was quite delighted.

It is sort of the movie which makes you feel nice and warm around heart, and believe that there is still some goodness in the world (all the neighbours pretended not to see what grace was doing in order to help her and protect her- the old policeman is my favourite), although you know that this story is not quite realistic.

I loved acting (they all seemed just as ordinary, common people, living in small picturesque English coast town) but the greatest thing in the movie was the wit and humor it has! Just remember the scene in the shop with two old ladies after they had their "tea"!!

Perhaps the ending was a little bit confusing, but it didn't stop me from really, really enjoying the whole story!@@@1 +Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****@@@0 +"Saving Grace" is never riotously funny, but it delivers quite a few good laughs and I enjoyed it to a significant degree. Brenda Blethyn is a fine actress, and does a good job at portraying widower Grace, who resorts to growing marijuana to pay off her massive debts. The supporting cast also does a fine job. French actor Tchecky Karyo has a funny little role. The premise alone is appealing. The idea of an over-the-hill woman growing and smoking pot sounds funny enough. And the film plays around with the premise wisely every now and then. Of course, there are flat moments, like one where two elderly women mistaken Grace's marijuana leaves for tea leaves and they start pulling childish antics at the store where they work. That was a mindless gag that didn't quite take off. The film's tone is downbeat and occasionally dull, but I got enough laughs to give this English import a recommendation.

My score: 7 (out of 10)@@@1 +My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 +Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.@@@1 +OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...@@@0 +After her Oscar-nominated turn in "Secrets & Lies", Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great "Saving Grace". And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.

After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.

Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that!@@@1 +Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.@@@0 +This light hearted comedy should be enjoyed for entertainment value. It gets quite hysterically funny at times, but if you haven't spent any time on 'that' side of the tracks you will miss the comedy when it erupts.

The cast of characters meld well together and are quite believable in their roles. How Grace handles meeting her dead husbands girlfriend was well played. She's a true lady. And, my favorite is Grace's white pimp suit that she wears.

I highly recommend this flick to anyone who wants to laugh out loud, who cheers for the underdog or just wishes to watch something different.@@@1 +I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?@@@0 +For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine.@@@1 +Raising Victor Vargas: A Review

You know, Raising Victor Vargas is like sticking your hands into a big, steaming bowl of oatmeal. It's warm and gooey, but you're not sure if it feels right. Try as I might, no matter how warm and gooey Raising Victor Vargas became I was always aware that something didn't quite feel right. Victor Vargas suffers from a certain overconfidence on the director's part. Apparently, the director thought that the ethnic backdrop of a Latino family on the lower east side, and an idyllic storyline would make the film critic proof. He was right, but it didn't fool me. Raising Victor Vargas is the story about a seventeen-year old boy called, you guessed it, Victor Vargas (Victor Rasuk) who lives his teenage years chasing more skirt than the Rolling Stones could do in all the years they've toured. The movie starts off in `Ugly Fat' Donna's bedroom where Victor is sure to seduce her, but a cry from outside disrupts his plans when his best-friend Harold (Kevin Rivera) comes-a-looking for him. Caught in the attempt by Harold and his sister, Victor Vargas runs off for damage control. Yet even with the embarrassing implication that he's been boffing the homeliest girl in the neighborhood, nothing dissuades young Victor from going off on the hunt for more fresh meat. On a hot, New York City day they make way to the local public swimming pool where Victor's eyes catch a glimpse of the lovely young nymph Judy (Judy Marte), who's not just pretty, but a strong and independent too. The relationship that develops between Victor and Judy becomes the focus of the film. The story also focuses on Victor's family that is comprised of his grandmother or abuelita (Altagracia Guzman), his brother Nino (also played by real life brother to Victor, Silvestre Rasuk) and his sister Vicky (Krystal Rodriguez). The action follows Victor between scenes with Judy and scenes with his family. Victor tries to cope with being an oversexed pimp-daddy, his feelings for Judy and his grandmother's conservative Catholic upbringing.

The problems that arise from Raising Victor Vargas are a few, but glaring errors. Throughout the film you get to know certain characters like Vicky, Nino, Grandma, Judy and even Judy's best friend Melonie. The problem is, we know nothing of Victor Vargas except that he is the biggest gigolo in the neighborhood. We know that he knows how to lick his lips, and comb his fro, and carry himself for the sake of wooing girls into the sack, but that's all. We know that Nino plays piano, and quiet well, you could see it by the awards on the family piano. We know his sister Nicki, is a gossip-loving girl with an invested interest in watching TV. We know that grandma is a hard-working traditional Latina woman who's trying to raise her kids with conservatively in a world of excess corruption. Yet where is the titular character, Victor Vargas? He's in this movie somewhere, but we only know what the movie tells us. This is by far the film's biggest flaw. Victor Vargas isn't so much a character but a ping-pong ball, bouncing between scenes with Judy and his Grandmother, but we never get to know who Victor Vargas really is. This is important because as I've mentioned the only thing we know of Victor Vargas is that he's a sexually active teenager with a libido the size of Manhattan. He's a total Alpha-male. Victor Vargas is not the kind of character I sympathize with at all. Why should anyone? So by the end of the movie, in the aftermath of the climax are we truly led to believe that somehow Victor Vargas has attained ANY depth and learned the errors of his ways? How could such a two-dimensional character have any depth? If only the director had worried a little more about fleshing out his main character instead of worrying about getting that perfect hand-held shot.

Raising Victor Vargas brings to life the world of the Latino inner-city neighborhood to the big screen. Something that few films have done before in the past. The film has been complimented for feeling so real, and I won't

argue with that. I haven't seen this level of reality since CBS aired Survivor. Seriously, although the movie has some nice shots of the city, the writer/director Peter Sollett was way too dependent on close-ups and hand-held shots. This problem is particularly noticed in indoor scenes that are so claustrophobic I was forced to perform deep-breathing exercises to keep from passing out. As the film continues, the shots get tighter and tighter with faces cropped from brow to chin on the screen; you can practically smell Victor Vargas's cheap cologne. The overall effect is unrealistic in contrast. The indoor scenes of inner-city apartments make them look small and cramp, which is not true. I've been in those type apartments; I used to live in one. They're not splendorous but they have high ceilings and they're decent living spaces. By the movie's standards you'd think that these apartments were 5x5 cells of brick-and-mortar, chipped paint and cracked walls. Unfortunately, Sollett's constant use of close-ups and one particularly bad shot with a zoom-in on one scene come off as totally amateurish. But Raising Victor Vargas is only Sollett's second film, and his most well known, a solid effort in filmmaking that will hopefully get better as he continues to make films. One review I read summarized the movie as, `Ethnicity for Ethnicity's Sake,' and I cannot agree more. If Victor Vargas were truly a great film and story, then the characters' applicability wouldn't matter whether they were Latino, Chinese, etc. Yet if you were to take this story and stick it in middle-class suburbia with a bunch of teeny-bopper white kids the results wouldn't be such glowing reviews, and we'd see the film's flaws more clearly. Indeed, some other aspects of the use of Latinos in this film bother me. While some aspects of Victor Vargas are accurate others I have to question. For example, Victor, Nino and Vicky all share the same room to sleep. This set off an alarm for me because it seemed contrary to what I believe. Any self-respecting Latino family wouldn't have two older brothers sharing the same room with a thirteen-year old girl. At first I was unsure, perhaps I was wrong, but after speaking with my grandmother I knew my problem with this was justified. Considering how conservative the grandmother is, you'd think that Vicky would have been sleeping in her room.

As a Latino who grew up in a somewhat conservative Cuban household, raised by my grandmother while my mother was working full-time, I could relate to the movie in many ways, which is why my critical viewpoints are bittersweet because I really wanted to love this movie. Unfortunately, my lack of respect for Victor Vargas sabotaged my feelings for the film. Maybe it's because Victor Vargas reminds me of those guys who were getting laid while I was playing with my Sega Genesis when I was seventeen. Maybe it's because without any further introspection by the film, Victor Vargas is merely a stereotypical hot-blooded Latino, who'll just end up shouting to girls from his car, `Hey bay-bee, ju want to get into my luv Mah-Cheen?' Either way I don't like him, so ultimately how can I like a film about him? So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stick my hands into a bowl of grits.

@@@0 +Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.

Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure.@@@1 +I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?@@@0 +A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed.@@@1 +If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!@@@0 +I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie!@@@1 +I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...@@@0 +This movie is inspiring to anyone who is or has been in a tough jam, whether financially or emotionally. You will definitely laugh, which is the best medicine! :) Left in a bad financial situation when her husband dies, Grace has to find a new way to make some money and it's not exactly legal which adds to the humour. Even my boyfriend liked it so don't think that it's a chick-flic.@@@1 +A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10@@@0 +Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special "business", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.

I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.

Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it.@@@1 +On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.@@@0 +Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.@@@1 +I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.

But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.

It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.

I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.@@@0 +Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time.@@@1 +Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!

Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.

Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!@@@0 +I just thought it was excellent and I still do. I'm grateful we're still able to see different stuff from what Hollywood almost floods us with. Saving Grace is smart and enjoyable - those who feel offended by the marijuana thing better go see the America's bride sort of movie.

Saving Grace also shows that a funny movie doesn't have to be stupid. I was laughing my ass off during most of it but also pondering questions about what was the female lead character supposed to do to pay her deceased husband's debts.

In a nutshell - a witty storyline with typical English humour and good acting and directing. You couldn't ask for more.

7/10.@@@1 +So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.

This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.

Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.

I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!@@@0 +It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.@@@1 +I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.

The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.

That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.@@@0 +Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.@@@1 +OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!@@@0 +Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, "director in focus" of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.@@@1 +This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang.

The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical.

Disappointing: Sinatra

Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary.

Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice"

Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)

Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.@@@0 +This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.@@@1 +En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).@@@0 +Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.@@@1 +I never was an avid viewer of "Crocodile Hunter", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.

A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers!

Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from "Crocodile Hunter" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical "Crocodile Hunter" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.

Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, "The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in "Crocodile Hunter" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes!@@@0 +Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.

The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.

I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.@@@1 +Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.

Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup – there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.

On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say "They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness"? (what credibility? - Ed note.)

The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.

John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.

The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the "fourth wall" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well…). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters – but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush – anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles.

While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office.

Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints…

So enjoy this diversion for what it is – a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved – interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)@@@0 +one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!@@@1 +The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.

It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.

The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.

Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.

4/10@@@0 +When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.

I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.

Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.

Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.

This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME!@@@1 +I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..

Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10!@@@0 +Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A@@@1 +I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...@@@0 +Yes, that's right, it is. I firmly believe that the N64 and the weird looking controller were both designed just so this game could be made. It was amazing the first time I saw it, with its huge environments and colorful characters, and its amazing now. The play control is perfect, the graphics are beautiful, and it has that Nintendo charm that is always so intangible but undeniably there. A must have for any N64 owner, and a reason to get an N64 for everyone else.@@@1 +If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.

It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.

No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.

The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.

Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!@@@0 +Rated E

I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.

10/10@@@1 +When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it".

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong.@@@0 +This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!@@@1 +OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!@@@0 +Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.@@@1 +I thought that the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.

And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.

P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT@@@0 +I have not read the novel, though I understand that this is somewhat different from it; the fact that I rather enjoyed this, coupled with the fact that this really is not my genre, leads me to the decision of not pursuing reading the book. Having not read a single word of Austen's writing, I really can't compare this to any of her work. What I can say is that almost every line of dialog in this is clever, witty, and well-delivered, as well as the biggest source of comedy in this. This made me laugh out loud a lot, with perfect British and verbal material. Every acting performance is spot-on, and Paltrow completely nails the role of a kind matchmaker. The characters are well-written, credible and consistent. I did find a couple of them extremely irritating, however, and while I think that at least some of that was meant to be funny, it tended to get repeated excessively, and it honestly wasn't amusing the first time they appeared. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and everything looks utterly gorgeous. Plot and pacing are great, you're never bored. It does end in a *really* obvious manner, but maybe that's what the audience of these prefer. I can't claim that this did not entertain me, it did from start to finish, and I'd watch it again. There is brief language in this. I recommend this to any fan of romance stories. 7/10@@@1 +Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.

Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.

Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.@@@0 +This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.

This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.

I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.@@@1 +Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store …

This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show.@@@0 +This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.@@@1 +oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...

one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....

and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...

and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...

these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...

rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...@@@0 +"Emma Woodhouse" Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love, Duets) has nothing to do with herself but painting, going with her friends on her chariot up and down, saying hello to people in town, and trying to match make everybody she knows. I guess there were no movies, no television in those days, and the girls had nothing to do but gossip. I wish she had read a little more. I like Gwyneth, and think that she is a lovely young woman. She is talented, and in "Emma" one has the privilege to hear Gwyneth sing. I am looking forward to seeing "Duets", where she is suppose to sing. She is brave to speak British English with all those native Britons, including Emma Thompson's sister, "Miss Bates" Sophie Thompson (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dancing at Lughnasa). "Mrs. Elton" Juliet Stevenson (Truly, Madly Deeply) was considered one of the most promising actors in 1991. Gwyneth is part of the American movie royalty, being none other than the daughter of director Bruce Paltrow (St. Elsewhere) and Tony Award Winner Blythe Danner (The Myth of Fingerprints). She will hopefully be around for a real long time. Lucky us! I liked Emma and also recommend it. It is one of those old stories that are still accurate those days. Favorite scenes: Emma singing and playing the piano. I specially like it when she sings a duet. Favorite Quotes: Mr. Knightley": Emma, you didn't ask me to contribute a riddle." Emma: "Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified." Miss Bates: "It left us speechless, quite speechless I tell you, and we have not stopped talking of it since."@@@1 +Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.@@@0 +First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!

@@@1 +I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.@@@0 +If you have any clue about Jane Austen´s production, you´ll now that she repeats the same in each of her novels: marriage, marriage and marriage! In my opinion all the movies made from her novels are a bit boring, but I like Austen´s characters, because they all have a certain personality and typical sayings they like to repeat as also in Emma. The thing that makes Emma good is Gwyneth Paltrow, she´s very good in her leading role. Also the fact that each one of the characters in the movie don´t seem to be able to think anything but how to get a good partner and soon married makes the movie hilarious.@@@1 +This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".@@@0 +Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.@@@1 +The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.

The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.

The characters were wooden and one dimensional.

The ending made no sense.

Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.

Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'

The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.

If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...@@@0 +A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well.@@@1 +Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.

Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.

This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:

-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot

Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.

Give the demonic ..... 0/10.@@@0 +"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers………).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10@@@1 +Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.@@@0 +Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.@@@1 +From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it!

But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.@@@0 +Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).

The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.

The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.

Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.

Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.@@@1 +Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!@@@0 +I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one!@@@1 +I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!@@@0 +This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience.@@@1 +Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.@@@0 +I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie.@@@1 +Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.@@@0 +Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.

@@@1 +This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.@@@0 +This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.@@@1 +This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.@@@0 +Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary@@@1 +For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.

One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.

* out of ***** (1 out of 5)@@@0 +Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!

Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!).

Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!

Highly recommended.@@@1 +I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.@@@0 +I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma).@@@1 +The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.@@@0 +Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.



@@@1 +Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".

Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.

15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.

*1/2 out of ****@@@0 +This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!@@@1 +I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.@@@0 +I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.@@@1 +I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.@@@0 +By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR@@@1 +1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.@@@0 +A remarkable documentary about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, in legally safeguarding the rights of women and children from acts of domestic violence. In this Muslim culture, where men have always been sovereign over women, according to Sharia law, one can well imagine the difficulty of imposing secular legal rights for women and children. After 17 years of failed efforts, leaders of the WLA began recently to score a few wins, and the purpose of this film is to share these victorious stories.

The leaders of this legal reform movement are Vera Ngassa, a state prosecutor, and Beatrice Ntuba, a senior judge (Court President). Both play themselves in this film, which may contain footage shot spontaneously, though I imagine much of it, if not all, consists of subsequent recreations of real events for the camera. Four cases are reviewed, and all of the plaintiffs also play themselves in the film.

Two cases involve repeated wife beating, with forcible sex in one case; another involves forced sex upon a 10 year old girl; and yet another concerns the repeated beatings of a child, age 8, by an aunt. One of the beaten wives also is seeking a divorce. We follow the cases from the investigation of complaints to the outcomes of the trials. The outcomes in each case are favorable to the women and children. The perpetrators receive stiff prison terms and/or fines; the divorce is granted.

The aggressive prosecution of the child beating aunt demonstrates that these female criminal justice officials are indeed gender-neutral when it comes to enforcing the law. Also noteworthy is the respect with which all parties, including those found guilty, are treated. This is a highly important and well made film. (Of interest is the fact that one of the directors, Ms. Longinotto, also co-directed the 1998 film, Divorce, Iranian Style, which dealt with related themes in Tehran.) (In broken English with English subtitles). My Grade: B+ 8/10@@@1 +*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****

The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.

The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.

This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.

All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.

The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.

The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women?

Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.

Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.

Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,

What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.

For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:

1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.

2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.@@@0 +What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!@@@1 +Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****@@@0 +I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy?@@@1 +This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.@@@0 +Make the World go away. Get it off my shoulder. Say the things you used to say, and make the World go away.

Well, Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) were in a pickle, one for embezzlement, and the other for kissing a child. Neither was guilty, but faced with charges and their house about to be torn down, they ended up in, well, nothing. The whole World, except for their house went away.

It is kind of weird, but funny, too. Just what would you do if you were all alone in the world? The two friends just enjoy each other's company, and do what they want. But, that gets old fast, it seems.

Then they start to improve their live by hating away memories. The sound effects during this were great.

Things really got weird at the end. This film was the product of a great imagination, and written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, with help from the two stars. It just has to be seen.@@@1 +Madison is not too bad-—if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971@@@0 +I totally agree that "Nothing" is a fantastic film! I've not laughed so much when watching a film for ages! and David Hewlett and Andrew Miller are fantastic in this! they really work well together! This film may not appeal to some people (I can't really say why without spoiling it!) but each to their own! I loved it and highly recommend it!

The directing is great and some of the shots are very clever. It looks as though they may have had a lot of fun when filming it!

Although there are really only main 2 characters in the film and not an awful lot of props the actors manage to pull it off and make the film enjoyable to watch.@@@1 +This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?

As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".

As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.@@@0 +Whether it's a good movie or not, films of this kind has to be made, i think. It remembers me of "I love Huckabees", a overwhelmingly puzzling movie with Isabelle Huppert being sodomized by a young American in a mud pond, in a merry sadistic-masochist way (??!!!!). I hope the director will go on stepping across the border, as though i felt the choices Vincenzo Natali made, were not always subtle (some of the scenes were unhappily kind of "tarte-à-la-crème", like a childish slapstick), speaking about script and cinematography… The color of "Cube" was black, "Nothing" is white, more cheerful, surprisingly, than the former films of Natali.@@@1 +Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.@@@0 +the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten@@@1 +

According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!

1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.

20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.

The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.@@@0 +Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".@@@1 +William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.

One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.

Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.@@@0 +This movie was very funny, I couldn't stop smiling when watching this and have already watched it twice in a period of 2 days! The movie is distinctively unique in it's humor and visuals, both are terrific and on par with Natali's other (more serious) movie gems Cube and Cypher. I have become a huge Vincenzo Natali fan ever since watching Cypher and everything he's made is very interesting.

Very likable about this movie are the music and "loser" characters Dave and Andrew, portrayed by David Hewlett and Andrew Miller (co-writer of the story), actors I both like very much. Also cool are the X-Box Dead Or Alive fights (you even see Dave playing Halo at a point) and Andrew's amazing guitar solo, among many other things.

All in all a great feel-good film about friendship. You have to see this!@@@1 +Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)@@@0 +I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour.@@@1 +The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!

This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.

Not recommended unless you're desperate.@@@0 +This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie.@@@1 +People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.@@@0 +Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl!@@@1 +Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.

Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.

If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_4.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_4.txt index c119be9..3f13d66 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_4.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_4.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary!@@@1 -You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10@@@0 -This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy.@@@1 -And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."

Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.@@@0 -i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.@@@1 -I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize.@@@0 -This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or "down" day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it!@@@1 -Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.@@@0 -The most moving and truly eye opening documentary ever created. I cried the whole way through, from start to end. Watching the show you are immediately captured by a man's struggle to live without pain, to live a life we would take for granted. The first time I heard the title, I was almost scared to see the program, it was hard for me to comprehend living in agony every day of every year of my life. I truly felt for him. The saddest part of the documentary is when Jonny picks out his coffin. Could you imagine doing that? Even more so, even though he was in excruciating and unbearable pain he still opened up his own charity. (DEBRA)Jonny is one of the only people that deserves true respect and admiration, he is the definition of a role model, what a true and undeniable hero he was!@@@1 -I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.@@@0 -In September 2003 36-year-old Jonny Kennedy died. He had a terrible genetic condition called Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - which meant that his skin literally fell off at the slightest touch, leaving his body covered in agonising sores and leading to a final fight against skin cancer. In his last months Jonny decided to work with filmmaker Patrick Collerton to document his life and death, and the result was a film, first broadcast in March, that was an uplifting, confounding and provocatively humorous story of a singular man. Not shying away from the grim reality of EB, the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full. Produced and directed by Patrick Collerton and first shown in March 2004 The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off has become the most talked about documentary of that year. It attracted nearly five million viewers and after the screening the public donated over half a million pounds to Jonny's charity, DEBRA. A Jonny Kennedy Memorial Fund has been set up to raise another half a million with the aim of ensuring that Jonny Kennedy left a one million pound legacy.@@@1 -Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.

3/10@@@0 -I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's.@@@1 -Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D@@@0 -Was flipping around the TV and HBO was showing a double whammy of unbelievably horrendous medical conditions, so I turned to my twin sister and said, "Hey this looks like fun," - truly I love documentaries - so we started watching it. At first I thought Jonni Kennedy was a young man, but then it was explained that due to his condition, he never went through puberty, thus the high voice and smaller body. He was on a crusade to raise money for his cause. He had the most wonderful sense of humor combined with a beautiful sense of spirituality... I cried, watched some more, laughed, got up to get another Kleenex, then cried some more. Once Jonni Kennedy's "time was up" he flew to heaven to be with the angels. He was more than ready; he had learned his lessons from this life and he was free. I highly recommend this. If you do not fall in love with this guy, you have no heart.@@@1 -I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)@@@0 -I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time.@@@1 -NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.

We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.

Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie.

See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.@@@0 -As with all of Angelopoulos' films, "The Suspended Step of the Stork" implicitly demands a close and intimate participation on the part of the viewer, a fact that has certainly contributed to the limited popularity of his work. Dialogues are sparing, with no monologues or exchanges exteriorizing the characters' inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The filmmaker prefers to keep the viewers away from their own emotional responses, and instead forces them to explore and study the characters' identities for themselves. As a result, the acting is understated and implicit, as opposed to overt and explicit.

The action scenes are set between long intervals of contemplation, where the viewer is asked to become a participant, to participate as an actor, by probing his or her own psyche. As in a novel, where the drama rests entirely on the author's writing to provide a template where the reader's imagination and/or past experience flourish, Angelopoulos' drama rests within his images: his uses of the long shots, the long takes, the leisurely pacing, the sparing dialogues that have become his trademark, inviting the viewer to experience the film from his or her personal perspective. Angelopoulos uses silence to capture moments of high intensity, reverting to the non-verbal language of gestures, gazes, sounds, and music, when he believes that words can only take us so far.

The music, by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, provides more than just a discreet background, but becomes itself a dramatic element of the story. A large part of the film consists of exterior shots in subtle, subdued colors, recorded in a drab winter light. Angelopoulos presents us with an "other Greece," one far different from the Greece of the tourist brochures, with ethereal blue skies and emerald seas, drowned in an eternal sunshine. Here, the skies are covered and gray, the air is cold and misty, and the sands of the pristine beaches have been replaced by the trampled, dirty snow of the village streets. Angelopoulos' genius through Arvanitis' camera is on display throughout the film.

"The Suspended Step of the Stork" is above all else a political statement aimed at the socio-political situation in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century. It is deeply concerned with the meaning of "borders," and with those who are the victims of the confusion between nations. In the "waiting room" facing the Albanian border, the refugees, political or other, outcast by the rest of humanity, wait. They may be stuck against a political border, but unfortunately they still carry with them, and hang on, deeper ancestral borders: those of the languages, of the customs, and of the races. Although Angelopoulos' political views are well known, the film steers clear of any political discourse regarding the causes of the refugees' plights. In the process, Angelopoulos forces us to meditate on the concepts of geographical, cultural, political, and personal "borders."

Angelopoulos considers himself a historian of twentieth century Greece, and he likes to bring lessons from the Hellenic myths into his discussions. In this film, he does some border crossing himself between the Greek and Italian cultures, drawing from a combined Homeric and Dantesque tradition of Odysseus' travel. Alexander is a Telemachus, in search of a story about an aging Greek politician/Odysseus who disappeared, never to be heard of again. This political man, a brilliant orator, unexpectedly and inexplicably left the comfort of his bourgeois existence, his wife, and his brilliant career, to live anonymously in a refugee camp with the lowest of the low. He became a poet in exile wondering how to change the world. Of course, the "politician" is not Alexander's father, but the "politician" stands before Alexander like a father figure/Odysseus. As with Homer's Telemachus, Alexander grows as a person during his odyssey.

Of course, it would be wrong to try and see in the film a retelling of Homer's Odyssey in a contemporary context. Angelopoulos draws on Odysseus's travels only as structuring and thematic elements for his film. In Angelopoulos' ending, "Odysseus" is more like the Dante's Odysseus: he does not leave for Ithaca but goes on, "carrying a suitcase." And Alexander/Telemachus is "suspended" between returning to his home and his career, or embarking on a voyage to "somewhere else." He states as much, in a voice-over at the beginning of the film, paraphrasing few lines from Dante's "Inferno": "And don't forget that the time for a voyage has come again. The wind blows your eyes far away."

Finally, although Angelopoulos is not a religious person, there is a Greek Orthodox religious theme introduced during the film in the form of the yellow-suited linesmen, who go around bettering things for their fellow human beings by reconnecting communications, and also the Christ-like figure of the "politician." In the final scene, these men in yellow demonstrate once more the Byzantine iconography's influence in Angelopoulos' work. They appear like "stylites," religious figures found in the Orthodox tradition, solitary and fervent men who took up their abode upon the tops of pillars, in a form of asceticism.

The film ends without a resolution as to the true identity of the character played by Mastroianni. Angelopoulos does not give us any clues, and the wife's statement, "It's not him," is far from convincing and left ambiguous enough. The important question of the film is not whether he is or is not the vanished politician, but that he could be the politician. But the film still ends on an optimistic note. Whereas the wires strung from pole to pole run only along the river, and thus communications across the border are still not possible, and it remains impenetrable, we note that this final scene is taken from a point of view across the river: the camera has crossed the border, and the reverse tracking shot is inviting Alexander and the viewer to follow beyond the boundary. On this account, Angelopoulos gives us hope that somehow, some of the borders will eventually crumble.@@@1 -This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)@@@0 -One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.

What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.

I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.

Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.

Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years.@@@1 -this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.@@@0 -A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)

Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.

Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.@@@1 -I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."

The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me.

The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)

Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10.@@@0 -Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), "Mister Roberts", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), "Shane", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) "King Kong" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS!@@@1 -I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.@@@0 -"The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" (1936), starring Thin Man series star William Powell (this film was released the same year as the second Thin Man film, "After The Thin Man," comes very close to duplicating the fun and style of the Thin Man films, but it nonetheless misses. Still, it is a wonderfully fun, highly entertaining murder mystery in the same comic vein.

Is Myrna Loy missed? Of course, let's not lie. However, I'd be hard-pressed to name a better substitute than Jean Arthur. And the chemistry between Arthur and co-star William Powell is real and it's fun, romantic and involving.

The story and screenplay by Anthonyu Vieller and John Wyne's production company partner, James Edward Grant ("The Angel & The Bad Man") is close to being up there with a Thin Man effort, but lacks a bit of the proper wit and sizzle.

While it's not in the stratosphere of 'The Thin Man" movies (what else is?), "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is one of the most entertaining of the dozens and dozens of mystery-comedy "who-done-its" of the '30s & 40s.@@@1 -I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!

Final Query:

Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.

DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!

Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.@@@0 -William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were.@@@1 -Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.@@@0 -I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.@@@1 -Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap."@@@0 -RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films.@@@1 -I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently.@@@0 -The comic banter between William Powell and Jean Arthur is the highlight of this murder mystery, which has one of the most bizarre and unlikely plots ever. Powell is probably the most suave detective of the 30's, and Arthur has a unique voice which often sounds like a succession of tiny tinkly bells. They are extremely fun to watch, so take the brashness of the plot with a grain of salt and just enjoy seeing it unfold. Eric Blore also has some comic turns as Powell's butler.

Powell's contract with MGM included a clause which allowed him to reject being loaned out to another studio, but he wanted to work again with Arthur and he liked the script, so he eagerly accepted the assignment. They had worked together in two 1929 Paramount films, The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, both in the Philo Vance series.@@@1 -For domestic audiences I can see how they would applaud this movie. For outsiders, with no vested interests, it did not make much sense. The Germans were portrayed as incompetents and the Russians as heroes. The supposedly romantic angle was superfluous and a distraction. How a young woman could 'love' the lieutenant from just glimpsing him was nonsense. How she could, as mentioned at the end of the movie, never marry just because of this infatuation was beyond me. I mentioned the Germans were portrayed as idiots and that was exemplified in the chase into the marsh. Several hundred German troops advanced, pushing the Russians into the marsh. So the Russians hid and the Germans stopped at the edge of the marsh and just stood there listening. I suppose they did not want to get their boots wet, but I am sure an officer would have ordered 20 or 30 men into the water to search the marsh. But that would have ended the story. Also, the Germans entered the barn where the Russians were hiding in the loft and did not bother to fire into the roof. At the worst some soldier would have tossed a grenade into the loft and not climbed a ladder to peer in.

I did see some reviewers who said they cried at the end. I wonder why? You knew this small band would perish and they was nothing heart-tugging in that.@@@0 -I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.

The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important "type writer" clicks and air "whooshes", which is a cool effect though quite amusing!

I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action.@@@1 -I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".

If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.@@@0 -The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!!@@@1 -Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS

This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe

The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid

The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more

Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay

Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual@@@0 -Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.@@@1 -Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.

My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child.@@@0 -I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family.@@@1 -Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!@@@0 -I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.@@@1 -This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.

Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.

If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.

The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.@@@0 -After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the "spin" pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one.@@@1 -I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.

If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.@@@0 -When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended.@@@1 -Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.@@@0 -This movie is really good. The plot, which works like puzzle forces viewer to think and guess, what will happen next. Such a trick brings a lot of surprises and makes a viewer really looking forward to solution of a riddle. Fighting scenes are very good. There's a lot of different combat styles (although one of styles was a bit unreal for me, but it's only my opinion) to watch and it's fascinating show. The only thing which may be irritating is actors look. A bit too effeminate (at least for me). Hong Kong was always good at kung-fu movies especially in the 70's and 80's, so "Five Venoms" (or other its versions) is great choice.@@@1 -TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.

One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.

The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".@@@0 -I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!

We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".

Watch it soon!@@@1 -Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.@@@0 -I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.

The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.

How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.

We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.

If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this.@@@1 -I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK@@@0 -If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10

@@@1 -While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.@@@0 -This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.@@@1 -Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.@@@0 -A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.

Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.

Around 7 out of 10.@@@1 -Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.@@@0 -One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD.@@@1 -This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!

10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!@@@0 -By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.

Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?

This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.

Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city.@@@1 -Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!@@@0 -"In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from."@@@1 -This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.

They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.

This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!@@@0 -There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.

An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word "Venom" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.

Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.

It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.

One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan.@@@1 -I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.@@@0 -Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.@@@1 -The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film".@@@0 -Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet.@@@1 -Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.

The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.@@@0 -After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his "unfinished" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five "venoms" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!@@@1 -First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.

One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.

It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.

It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.

Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!@@@0 -Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.

The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.

The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!@@@1 -I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.

Boy, was I wrong.

I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.

Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.

This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.

Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through@@@0 -Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.

But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.

Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.

Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.

The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.@@@1 -I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying.

I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall.

Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.@@@0 -For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.@@@1 -Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.

Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.@@@0 -Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"

The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.

The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.

The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest!@@@1 -I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.@@@0 -The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.

Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top.

Poison Clan rocks!@@@1 -This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?

@@@0 -I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white"@@@1 -Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.@@@0 -This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.

The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.

One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.

At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.

And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.

This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not.@@@1 -First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.

First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.

Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!

Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!

Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!@@@0 -The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor.@@@1 -WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.@@@0 -I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year!@@@1 -Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.@@@0 -I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there.

ps, Sarah? Call me....@@@1 -This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5@@@0 -The Sarah Silverman program is ... better than those other shows. No laugh tracks, no painful jokes, just a program. The Sarah Silverman program. If you're like me, and you love comedy, this is probably a show for you.

Sarah Silverman brings out-there-funny, and right-here-funny to the table with ease. A mix of different styles, which makes for its own.

This program isn't something you want to start a compare war with, seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with them (other shows). This show is its own entity, and i think most comedy heads will like it just fine.

Go watch and see.@@@1 -Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.

Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas.

It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.

It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.@@@0 -Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time.@@@1 -Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!

However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.@@@0 -Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential.

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds.@@@1 -"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-@@@0 -The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will "get it," it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with "Jesus is Magic" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot.@@@1 -First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.@@@0 -Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever.@@@1 -What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.@@@0 -First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.@@@1 -I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film.@@@0 -This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.

The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.

If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone!@@@1 -Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production.@@@0 -When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.

Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.

I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.

The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show.@@@1 -If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.

The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)

@@@0 -Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job).@@@1 -I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.@@@0 -Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there?@@@1 -I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.@@@0 -I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").

I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.

This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out!@@@1 -This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.@@@0 -Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and "Your car smells like farts" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel!@@@1 -If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!@@@0 -I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.

You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is "pulled over" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - "Do you know why I am standing here?" he asks. "Because you got all C's in high school?" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.

Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her "Jesus is Magic" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that.@@@1 -This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.

These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.

Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.

Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)

Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'@@@0 -For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.

What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.

So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.@@@1 -I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.

The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.

Why was this movie ever made?@@@0 -This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)

Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment.@@@1 -I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.

Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.

Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.

Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.@@@0 -This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word "bigot" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to "shock"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity...@@@1 -Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.

The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.

The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.

Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.

So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.@@@0 -All I can say is, if you don't fall in love with Big and Little Edie after watching this movie, then you're not human! Even after watching it for the first time, I was hooked. It is a mesmerizing experience that is difficult to describe, as I'm sure other fans will attest to. After watching it, you will cry to think that these two wonderful ladies are no longer with us. At least we have Grey Gardens to remember them! I think we all long to possess the fierce independence these two ladies were graced with. Although I have always admired Jackie Onassis Kennedy, she does not stay in your heart the way Big and Little Edie do. What a rare treat to have know such people; I only wish I had!@@@1 -I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.@@@0 -Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.@@@1 -I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.

The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.

I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.

In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch.@@@0 -I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.

Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating.@@@1 -Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.@@@0 -One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: "It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie "The World Famous Singer" and Little Edie " The World Famous Dancer."@@@1 -Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.

All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome.

The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles.

The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit.

Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these.

I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts.

Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.@@@0 -It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's "The Gates" in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings "Tea for Two". Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, " at least someone is doing what they want"!@@@1 -This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.@@@0 -I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.@@@1 -I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.

He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.

I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.

Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.@@@0 -When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.@@@1 -I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.

What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.@@@0 -Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"

Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!"

Great documentary!!

9/10@@@1 -I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .@@@0 -Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.@@@1 -A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.@@@0 -I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up!@@@1 -Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.@@@0 -Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society.@@@1 -*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***

Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick.

*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*

OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:

MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...

THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.

PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film.

RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.

Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.@@@0 -I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary.

Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.

I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film.@@@1 -Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.@@@0 -I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.

Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.

My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".

Love it.@@@1 -While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.

I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.

And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.

At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.@@@0 -Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.@@@1 -This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.@@@0 -Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget.@@@1 -How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer@@@0 -I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable.@@@1 -This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.@@@0 -Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one.@@@1 -If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.@@@0 -Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding.@@@1 -I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:

THIS FILM IS AWFUL.

It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.

Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.

The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.

All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.

I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?@@@0 -The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.@@@1 -This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.@@@0 -This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !

Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' )@@@1 -A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.

This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.

There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.

The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.

Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.@@@0 -I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out.

I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating?

Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time.@@@1 -I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.

I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.

The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.

The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.

Lord help us all.@@@0 -Several years ago when I first watched "Grey Gardens" I remember laughing and finding it hilarious camp. Years later I still laugh out loud when I watch it, but after many viewings I've come to see the beauty in the strange, twisted relationship between the inseparable "Big" Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter "Little" Edith Bouvier Beale.

Mother and daughter living together in their decaying 28 room East Hampton mansion add a whole new meaning to the term "Shabby Chic". With innumerable cats, raccoons and opossums as roommates this Aunt and Niece of Jackie O. allowed filmmakers Albert and David Maysles into their mansion to film them living life day to day. The result is a hilarious, beautiful, sad and moving account of true love and anarchy rule.

The relationship between Big and Little Edie is a testament to the unbreakable bonds of love. And their lives an example of drive, determination and free-will. This movie has more to recommend it than I can put down into words. It is a rare experience that you must see for yourself.

@@@1 -Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.

Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.@@@0 -This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended.@@@1 -Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.

In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.

The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.

All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.

Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).@@@0 -I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.@@@1 -I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.@@@0 -I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.@@@1 -A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.

As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.@@@0 -Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a "cult hit" so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ("Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!"), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as "eccentric", and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for "wacked out of their gourds", but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my "normal" type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed.@@@1 -Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.@@@0 -I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate

look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget

society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge

brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather

mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.

Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.

have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a

Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is

almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes

growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She

prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like

headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We

never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint

that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still

beautiful and full of life.

In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's

lives have become much less than what they once were. Little

Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her

earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and

even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings

along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is

one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a

model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to

find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,

full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic

bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.

Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little

Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,

the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver

scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly

candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable

since it's all real.

I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth

Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's

worth every penny.@@@1 -Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.@@@0 -'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.@@@1 -When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?

Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.

Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?

You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)

I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.

I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???

To sum up.....

The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....

Thanks for reading my review.@@@0 -One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?

The answer is: Probably not.

But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.

This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.

Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.

Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.

Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.

Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.

As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.

There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.

Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.

Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."

Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.

Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."

It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.

Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.

There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.

At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.

This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.@@@1 -I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.@@@0 -I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing.@@@1 -I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.

The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.@@@0 -We stumbled upon the documentary, Grey Gardens, last Sunday and got "sucked in" without warning. Everyone who entered the room became transfixed on the television and the haunting images of Edith and Edie who seemed to be living out their lives in practically one room of a large filthy mansion on the beach, eating ice cream and corn on the cob (which was cooked on the bedside table)--and the cat urinating on edith's bed and her unbelievable words, "i thrive on it [the smell]." We had not seen the beginning and wondered what we were watching and how these aristocratic women managed to get in the position they were in. Spellbinding! a must see!!!!@@@1 -When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.

The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.

In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.

It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.

In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.

And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.

They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.

If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.

Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?@@@0 -Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.

It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.

Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.

The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.

I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).

Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.

I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them.@@@1 -I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...

Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.

I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.@@@0 -Don't read anything about this movie (especially nothing that could contain any spoilers). Just watch this awesome movie without knowing anything about it - and you'll have a really great experience. If you like to see an intelligent, twisted story: Go, get the DVD and you'll truly not be disappointed. "Cypher" is not really a sci-fi movie, more a psycho thriller settled in the environment of globalized business. It's about corporate secrets, how big companies spy each others research departments and the methods used by them. The actors do a great performance and the overall visual style of the movie provides a perfect mode of coldness. Cypher is much deeper, more complex and - what belongs the story and the ending - also much, much more satisfying than Vincenzo Natali's other movies "Cube" and "Nothing". Actually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen (and that's something I really don't say this about every fifth well-made flick). Sorry, can't tell you anything more about this movie without risking to hurt your experience. Just give it a chance. ;-)@@@1 -If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...

First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.

Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.

Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.

Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.

It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.@@@0 -"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.@@@1 -*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.@@@0 -Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.@@@1 -I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.@@@0 -Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.

The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.

There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to.

What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.

Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.@@@1 -I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).

Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.

So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.

Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.

By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.@@@0 -Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.@@@1 -My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.@@@0 -Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.

The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.

The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.

However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too "slow", but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.

Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and "louder" but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again...@@@1 -The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.

P.S. Don't buy this movie!@@@0 -This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.

I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.

I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data.

Take it from there.

This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.

Then it begins to accelerate.

The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.

And at the end: All is not what it seems.

Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN.@@@1 -Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.@@@0 -This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.

I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.

I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time.@@@1 -Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.@@@0 -I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.

The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.

Congratulations to the Producer !@@@1 -Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.

About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.

I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.@@@0 -Who can watch a movie, look at Lucy Liu and not be overjoyed. That woman is amazingly beautiful & a talented actress. That's a tough combination to find now a days. And Jeremy Northam. i heard his name plenty of times, but i never really noticed him. My advice to Hollywood is : "use him more".

now about the movie: I watched it in one of my graveyard shift. I don't recommend that to anyone. It's a bit to complicated & mysterious for that. i still can't believe i didn't see the ending coming. I'm not gonna say what cause that'll spoil the hole movie. although saying this is spoilment enough.

now i'm suppose to cast my vote about this movie. I love the dark mystic story, the actors did a good job & i love the directors (natali) work in the past. There's not a big audience for this kind of thing, that's also pretty risky. you know what, i'm just gonna give this work a 8 cause everybody should see this. Then again, 1 point deduction cause there is always space for improvement.@@@1 -The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!@@@0 -WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.

Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.

It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.

I wish'd it would never end.

Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy.

This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.

Incredible!

8-22-06. Walt D in LV@@@1 -First of all.....

What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch.

What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth.

But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.@@@0 -It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds" – starring Rock Hudson – as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time.@@@1 -This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).@@@0 -This movie is about this wimpy guy who decides to become a spy for a glamorous high tech company named Digicorp. This wimpy guy, Morgan (Jeremy Northam) is unhappy with his miserable suburban life and his demanding wife so he decides to become a spy. He is suppose to go to conventions from other high tech companies and find out all the companies' plans. Instead, Morgan finds himself attracted to a beautiful woman (played by Lucy Liu) and pretty much being double-crossed by these two companies that force him to become a double agent. How will Morgan get himself out of this? Can he trust the beautiful but mysterious Rita Foster (played by Lucy Liu)? And more importantly, can Morgan make it out alive? Wow! What a nifty movie! I was completely sucked in after 15 minutes of watching this movie. It is very suspenseful and you can feel Morgan's fear and confusion as he is doing his best to stay alive. The scene where they put this horrible contraption on Morgan's head to brainwash him is brilliantly creepy and frightening. Morgan slowly goes through a personality transformation that is not so readily apparent until you think about it after the film is finished. From a wimpy guy with bad hair and glasses, he turns into a man actively fighting for his life.

The ending, wow, the ending is incredible! The twist is so much fun! It left me gasping and cheering like crazy! Good performances from all around, especially from Jeremy Natham, Lucy Liu and Nigel Bennett.

I highly recommend this film!@@@1 -Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.@@@0 -Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.

Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.

And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for.

The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):

"This little piggy went to market,

He was pink and as pretty as ham.

He smiled in his tracks,

As they gave him the ax -

He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"

His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!

Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.

The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.

A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew.@@@1 -I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.

I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.

--

@@@0 -This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.@@@1 -I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!@@@0 -I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner.@@@1 -This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.

I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.

Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.

I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.@@@0 -If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.

To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.

A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.

You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.

If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it!@@@1 -Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.@@@0 -Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions.

I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.

I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.

While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in.

When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.

As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.

Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.

One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.

Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.

The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.

David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.

But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.

Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.

Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.

A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff!@@@1 -I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!@@@0 -Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.

In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.

But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.

However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.

From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).

Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.

Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.@@@1 -Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....@@@0 -Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now.@@@1 -How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.@@@0 -In a near future, the ordinary man above any suspicious from the suburb Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is hired by Digicorp, a huge corporation, to be assigned as a spy and steal secrets from their competitors, Sunways. Along his training, Morgan is brainwashed, assumes a new identity of Jack Thursby and travels to boring lectures. In one of them, he is approached by the beautiful and mysterious Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who advises him that nothing is how it seems to be. Morgan acknowledges a new reality, where he does not know who can be trusted.

The unknown "Cypher" was a great surprise for me. This movie has not been released in Brazil, but the engaging and exciting story is quite complex, with many plot points, and with great screenplay, direction and performances. In the very last twist, I recalled Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall". This movie certainly deserves to be watched more than once, and I really did not like the last scene, when the independent spy disposes the disputed disc in the sea. In only know the director Vicenzo Natali from the fantastic "Cube", and this second work I see is also stunning. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available@@@1 -It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?@@@0 -This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2

@@@1 -This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me.

Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.

My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.

Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.@@@0 -This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...

This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.

Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.@@@1 -This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.

Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.

By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.@@@0 -Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.@@@1 -Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.@@@0 -You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.@@@1 -I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin...@@@0 -There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.@@@1 -I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.

So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.@@@0 -- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house?

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.@@@1 -Since most review's of this film are of screening's seen decade's ago I'd like to add a more recent one, the film open's with stock footage of B-17's bombing Germany, the film cut's to Oskar Werner's Hauptmann (captain) Wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to Hitler's Fuehrer Bunker, once inside, they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel, the film then cut's to one of many conference scene's with Albin Skoda giving a decent impression of Adolf Hitler rallying his officer's to "Ultimate Victory" while Werner's character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen's are caught up in a fantasy world-some non-bunker event's are depicted, most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a Russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the Flak unit's and his family's difficulty in surviving-this film suffer's from a number of detail inaccuracies that a German film made only 10 year's after WW2 should not have included; the actor portraying Goebbels (Willy Krause) wear's the same uniform as Hitler, including arm eagle- Goebbels wore a brown Nazi Party uniform with swastika armband-the "SS" soldier's wear German army camouflage, the well documented scene of Hitler awarding the iron cross to boy's of the Hitler Youth is shown as having taken place INSIDE the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly, Hitler's suicide weapon is clearly shown as a Belgian browning model 1922-most account's agree it was a Walther PPK-some bit's of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable, this bit is shown as a cabaret skit, with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose-stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease/belly dance, all by candlelight... this is actually embarrassing to watch-the most incredible bit is when Werner's Captain Wust gain's an audience alone with Skoda's Hitler, Hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench, drugged and delirious, when Werner's character begin's to question him, Hitler start's screaming which bring's in a SS guard who mortally wound's Werner's character in the back with a gunshot-this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account-Werner's character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while Hitler prepare's his own ending, Hitler's farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off-screen, the final second's of the movie show Hitler's funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead Oskar Werner/Hauptmann Wust-this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film's such as the 1973 remake "Hitler: the last 10 day's" or the German film "Downfall" (Der Untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story, these last two film's are based on first person eyewitness account's, with "Hitler: the last 10 day's" being compiled from Gerhard Boldt's autobiography as a staff officer in the Fuehrer Bunker and "Downfall" being done from Hitler's secretary's recollection's, the screen play for "Der Letzte Akte" is taken from American Nuremberg war crime's trial judge Michael Musmanno's book "Ten day's to die", which is more a compilation of event's (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history-it is surprising that Hugh Trevor Roper's account,"The last day's of Hitler" was never made into a film.@@@0 -When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.

The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...

Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.

It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Highly recommended.@@@1 -This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie!

The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.

A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.@@@0 -A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com@@@1 -A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.

My Grade: D@@@0 -I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.

Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.

Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.

The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.@@@1 -And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this?@@@0 -There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.@@@1 -I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!@@@0 -I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.@@@1 -This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.

I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.

The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).

Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.@@@0 -This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****

Remember Extreme ääliöt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video.@@@1 -I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.@@@0 -Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'.@@@1 -Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.@@@0 -This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........@@@1 -A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.@@@0 -This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!@@@1 -I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.@@@0 -Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies.@@@1 -Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!@@@0 -While the prices have gone up a lot, and some of the details have become dated, any homeowner who's struggled with problems of homeownership should get a lot of chuckles out of this movie. I know I did.

Mr. Blandings, a New York ad executive, decides to move his family to the Connecticut suburbs and build himself a nice house there. He gets into one hilarious jam after another, from mortgages to lawsuits to construction difficulties, as the costs and schedule of the construction keep escalating out of control. I thought that the funniest scenes were where Blandings hires a contractor to dig a well for water. They dig down hundreds of feet, but never find water. Yet only a short distance away, a few days later, the basement of his house-to-be floods!

Cary Grant and Myrna Loy give believable performances as the harried Blandings couple overwhelmed by problems they never imagined, and Melvyn Douglas is even better as Blanding's lawyer and family friend.

The only caveat is that social attitudes have changed a lot since 1948. Mrs. Blandings is portrayed as a bit of a naive dimbulb who has no idea how much additional trouble she's causing, and there's a black maid (horrors!). So don't watch this movie through the social lens of 2003, and you'll enjoy it all the more.

@@@1 -This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.

There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.

The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.

Skip this bogus thing.@@@0 -After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.

Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****).@@@1 -First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...

Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.

The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.@@@0 -After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.@@@1 -Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.

It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).

There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.

There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..

Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.

I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.@@@0 -FORGET CREDIBILITY

You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.

"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."

@@@1 -In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe – I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.

These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".

Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.@@@0 -The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.

The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.

The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.

Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.@@@1 -David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.

To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.

Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.

The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.

While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.

He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says "I love creepy boys," perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.

Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.'@@@0 -This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.

Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.

And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action!

Brilliant movie!@@@1 -I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.@@@0 -Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.@@@1 -Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.

This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.

They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.

Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here

See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.@@@0 -Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old?

There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.

The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell.

Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.

The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on.

Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.@@@1 -I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.@@@0 -Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.@@@1 -Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).

Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).

To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.

@@@0 -To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.

It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !@@@1 -Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.

If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.

Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.

As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.

The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.

Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

You'll just love it.@@@0 -I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.@@@1 -Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'

'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.

The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.

'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.

This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.

Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.

Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.

As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.

** out of 4

Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr@@@0 -In Manhattan, the American middle class Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) lives with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and two teenage daughters in a four bedroom and one bathroom only leased apartment. Jim works in an advertising agency raising US$ 15,000.00 a year and feels uncomfortable in his apartment due to the lack of space. When he sees an advertisement of a huge house for sale in the country of Connecticut for an affordable price, he drives with his wife and the real estate agent and decides to buy the old house without any technical advice. His best friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) sends an acquaintance engineer to inspect the house, and the man tells that he should put down the house and build another one. Jim checks the information with other engineers and all of them condemn the place and sooner he finds that he bought a "money pit" instead of a dream house.

"Mr. Blandings Builds his Own House" is an extremely funny comedy, with witty lines and top-notch screenplay. Cary Grant is hilarious in the role of a man moved by the impulse of accomplishing with the American Dream of owning a huge house that finds that made bad choice, while losing his touch in his work and feeling jealous of his friend. In 1986, Tom Hanks worked in a very funny movie visibly inspired in this delightful classic, "The Money Pit". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Lar, Meu Tormento" ("Home, My Torment")@@@1 -First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.@@@0 -Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.

But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.

Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.

The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.

The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.

Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.

I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.

In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.

It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.

Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.

Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.

Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.

Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.

Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.

Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.

It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.

Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)@@@1 -I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos – Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.@@@0 -Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****@@@1 -It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.

Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.

However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.@@@0 -Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing…

Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit…

Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money…

With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie…@@@1 -"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.

It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.

The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.

It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.

No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.@@@0 -I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.

Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...

Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?

'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.

'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10@@@1 -The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?

I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???

I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3.

Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.@@@0 -Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.@@@1 -i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.@@@0 -Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3-@@@1 -This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.

The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.

The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.

I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)@@@0 -A prison cell.Four prisoners-Carrere,a young company director accused of fraud,35 year old transsexual in the process of his transformation, Daisy,a 20 year-old mentally challenged idiot savant and Lassalle,a 60 year-old intellectual who murdered his wife.Behind a stone slab in the cell,mysteriously pulled loose,they discovered a book:the diary of a former prisoner,Danvers,who occupied the cell at the beginning of the century.The diary contains magic formulas that supposedly enable prisoners to escape."Malefique" is one of the creepiest and most intelligent horror films I have seen this year.The film has a grimy,shadowy feel influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft,which makes for a very creepy and unsettling atmosphere.There is a fair amount of gore involved with some imaginative and brutal death scenes and the characters of four prisoners are surprisingly well-developed.It's a shame that Eric Valette made truly horrible remake of "One Missed Call" after his stunning debut.9 out of 10.@@@1 -It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.@@@0 -Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.@@@1 -I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo?@@@0 -I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go "What the f*ck did I just see?" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like "The Grudge" or even "Silent Hill". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be!@@@1 -I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.

Except..

Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!@@@0 -Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.

The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.

I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.

I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10@@@1 -All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.

And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.

The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.@@@0 -This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong?

Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art.@@@1 -As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.@@@0 -Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good.@@@1 -You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.

Episode 'Valentines Pay'

Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end

Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk.

IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.

'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.@@@0 -This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.

Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.

I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.@@@1 -The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set".

She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.@@@0 -In a penitentiary, four prisoners occupy a cell: Carrère (Gérald Laroche), who used his company to commit a fraud and was betrayed by his wife; the drag Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and his protégée, the retarded Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who ate his six months sister; and the intellectual Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), who killed his wife. One night, Carrère finds an ancient journal hidden in a hole in the wall of the cell. They realize that the book was written by Danvers (Geoffrey Carey) in the beginning of the last century and is about black magic. They decide to read and use its content to escape from the prison, when they find the truth about Danvers' fate. "Maléfique" is an original, intriguing and claustrophobic French low-budget horror movie. The story is practically in the same location, does not have any clichés and hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. I am a great fan of French cinema, usually romances, dramas and police stories, but I noted that recently I have seen some good French horror movies, such as "Un Jeu d' Enfants", "Belphegor" and "Dead End". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sinais do Mal" ("Signs of the Evil")@@@1 -I wish I could say that this show was unusual in it's banality,but it is usual in every way.It has the dumb husband,his smarter but boring and conventional wife, along with the idiotic sidekick for "comic" relief-it sorely needs it.Stale predictable jokes, with even more predictable reactions from the laughtrack, punctuate this noxious mental narcotic's nauseatingly unimaginative plot lines to leave me either physically ill, or in a deep sleep more resembling that of an induced coma. But it might be on for a while yet because it gives the average American a personage to which they can truly identify.A "regular" guy just like you and me.I live in the southern U.S, so to me this show is just the opposite of escapism.Down here, that obnoxious character is everywhere, in some form or another.Seeing him on television is brutal overkill.@@@0 -Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.

Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version.@@@1 -This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!@@@0 -Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with… Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.@@@1 -Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.

The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.

I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.

Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!@@@0 -French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.

Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing!@@@1 -This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....@@@0 -Maléfique is a very interesting movie. It is an unholy alloy of triumphs and failures. The central concept is great, three inmates with bizarre personalities are joined by a fourth (who the audience identify with) and they try to escape from their cell using a book of magic that they find within the walls of the cell.

The atmosphere is well-woven, it reminds me of reading about the prison stay of Edmond Dantes' in the Château d'If (prior to becoming the Count of Monte Cristo). The director sets up the feeling that the characters are tied to the cell, particularly the character we are meant to identify with (Carrère - a white-collar criminal whose crime is not specified, but it's obliquely suggested might be fraud). On one occasion Carrère dithers when leaving the cell for exercise and has the cell door shut on him; we never leave the cell, the claustrophobia is unbroken. There are also no shots of the prison outside the cell, and the view through the bars is a longing sunset over a generic prison wall. So even though the film appears to be very modern, it has a very old world feel of incarceration.

The characters are intriguing. We have Marcus, a violent pre-op transsexual who plays an abusive mother to Pâquerette (French for Daisy) a heavily retarded young man. Pâquerette likes to eat everything he finds beautiful, and unfortunately this included his baby sister, hence his current predicament (I like this comment on internalisation, very primitive). Lasalle is a withdrawn, possessed elderly man, in for brutally murdering his wife.

The central message of the movie is that your desires will annihilate you, and there's a ritual that goes with that. I think that's what disturbs me the most, seeing people destroying themselves ritualistically. It has a real life ring to it. The quite simple soundtrack backs this up well, every step deeper into the quicksand is accompanied by the dull ringing of a gong. I'm actually hearing the gong now every time I do something self-destructive.

I think one of the plot problems is that the ends of the characters don't really reinforce the message consistently, particularly with Carrère, also the concept of the book seems to alter throughout the film, not in terms of a successive revelation either. I also think that some of the images we see are a bit amateurish, more by design than execution, such as the famous "vagina eye", and the sodomy of Lasalle, for me, totally hollow images.

At the end the movie it feels like the director is in a rush to get it over with, and some things don't seem logical, for example we've been clumsily led to believe different things about Carrère's child. This doesn't change the fact though that what we have here is that rare bird, a "pure" horror movie. There is no comedic dross or genre segueing, like Cube (1997/Natali), the obvious movie to compare it to, it's a total immersion experience, where you feel as if you are in the cell with the characters. This last comment I make about it being a "pure" experience I think is something others have mentioned as well so that is a fairly unanimous point.

On a personal note my favourite part of the film is when Lasalle talks about his past as a librarian. He very vividly describes a scene where he goes to work one day and sits down in his usual place in the centre of a room where all the books are arranged in a circle around him. The books seem to be chanting to him that he will never contain their knowledge. This prompts Lasalle to go insane. That really is the problem with an obsession with understanding and knowledge. It's something I myself have felt.

One final comment is that two of the quite well-received comments on the board have confused the characters' names. To convince yourself that Lasalle is the older librarian character, simply click on Philippe Laudenbach's page and you will see he was born in 1936.@@@1 -This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie@@@0 -I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.@@@1 -There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.

The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.

Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.@@@0 -I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.

It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.

Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.

Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!

Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.@@@1 -Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.@@@0 -If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...

Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.

With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.

Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia@@@1 -If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.

The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.

It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.

I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.

So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.@@@0 -The film opens with Bill Coles (Melvyn Douglas) telling a story about how his best friend--make that client--Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) and his family are tightly packed into a small New York apartment, with not enough closet space and way too few bathrooms. When Jim's wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy), wants to renovate the apartment, advertising exec Jim falls in love with (or falls for!) an ad for a house. Once he's purchased the house, bills and frustration pile up incessantly as everything that can go wrong with the building of Jim's 'dream house' goes wrong.

One of three collaborations between Grant and Loy, this is a charming little comedy--not very taxing, with no real great message, but a great way to spend an hour or two. The laughs are there right from the start, when the alarm clock goes off and Jim tries to shut it off, only to be thwarted at every turn by Muriel. The timing and delivery of the comedic lines and situations can only be given by a couple of seasoned pros, and that's just what Grant and Loy give us: polished performances, simple chemistry, and a lot of fun. Myrna Loy is in a pretty thankless role (it's evident that Grant's character Jim gets the lion share of the lines and the acting, and Grant, as always, pulls both off with remarkable aplomb), but she gives Muriel a colour, life and bite that only Myrna Loy can give a character. Melvyn Douglas plays wry amusement to perfection as well, never hitting a single wrong note.

One of my favourite scenes has definitely got to be when Bill gets himself locked in the 'store room', and Jim goes to 'save' him... only to get everyone trapped inside! Every little problem that pops up for the Blandings renovation project--including petty jealousy and an ad campaign for 'Wham'--seems to bring together everything that *could* go wrong with building a new house but makes it believable and an enjoyable watch. 8/10@@@1 -This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."

"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance."

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.@@@0 -Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise!@@@1 -Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!

I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?

It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)@@@0 -"Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.

The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.

Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.

Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.

The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.

The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.

Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10@@@1 -A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.

This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.

I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.

Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)?

Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.@@@0 -When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!@@@1 -The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!

Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???

Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!

A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!!@@@0 -I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...

The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.

Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).

The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.

The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.

Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.

If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

Enjoy!@@@1 -This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.@@@0 -My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).

I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.@@@1 -I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.

The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.

The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.

Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.

Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary.

While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.

I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks.

The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.@@@0 -Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!@@@1 -I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.

At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.

First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.

Figure that out.@@@0 -Monty Berman and Dennis Spooner followed up 'The Baron' with this, a fantasy series about three superhuman spies which preempted 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. It was a favourite of mine when I was a youngster, and I enjoy watching it still. Stuart Damon and William Gaunt had an unmistakable on-screen chemistry as Craig Stirling and Richard Barrett, while the luscious Alexandra Bastedo pouted her way through her role as Sharron Macready. The late Anthony Nicholls made a wonderfully gruff Tremayne. By far the best episodes were those written by Tony Williamson, Terry Nation and Brian Clemens, while Spooner's own 'The Interrogation' compared favourably with 'The Prisoner'. I regret that there was never a second series; the concept had so much life left in it. Would Craig and Richard have been competitors for Sharron's affections? What if Tremayne had learned of the Champions' powers? Did the Champions have any other abilities other than those we saw? We never found out, alas.@@@1 -I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?@@@0 -I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.@@@1 -What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.

Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.

Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?

What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..

Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?

Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.

Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.@@@0 -i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.@@@1 -Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)@@@0 -The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.

The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.

The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)

Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.@@@1 -"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.

Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru.

Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.

I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.

The roles are well played but the story is thin.@@@0 -Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.

Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.

Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.

The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.

The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.@@@1 -Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.@@@0 -This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.@@@1 -It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.@@@0 -I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...

It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.

I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!@@@1 -Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.@@@0 -Real cool, smart movie. I loved Sheedy's colors, especially the purple car. Alice Drummond is Wise And Wonderful as Stella. I liked Sheedy's reference to how her face had gotten fatter. The roadside dance scene is brilliant. Really liked this one.@@@1 -Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.@@@0 -I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy:

"It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless"@@@1 -I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure@@@0 -"I'll Take You There" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.@@@1 -Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.

I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)@@@0 -This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.@@@1 -This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."@@@0 -For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.

This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.

If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.@@@1 -Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....@@@0 -At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in.

long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.

i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....

it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....

what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.

well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try?

i would@@@1 -I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.@@@0 -Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.

After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.

The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.

It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.

Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies."@@@1 -Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.

Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time.

We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's

based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.

I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I

didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended.

*/*****@@@0 -"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.

Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.

My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.@@@1 -I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.@@@0 -If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while!@@@1 -Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.@@@0 -I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now!@@@1 -This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.

- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line

Yuck!

@@@0 -I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.@@@1 -The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.

Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....@@@0 -it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.

it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.@@@1 -Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?@@@0 -I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.@@@1 -This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!@@@0 -Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.

The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?@@@1 -Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10@@@0 -Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.@@@1 -Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.

Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?

But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137@@@0 -I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.

Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".@@@1 -Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.@@@0 -First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.

I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver.

It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.

However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.

Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.@@@1 -The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.@@@0 -I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!@@@1 -honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.

Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!!@@@0 -I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.@@@1 -Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me "what did she say that for?" and "why did he do that?" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply "bringing realism" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. "Prehysteria!" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.@@@0 -In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best.@@@1 -I read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.@@@0 -First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.

This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.

What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers.@@@1 -You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.

A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.

I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...

umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go.@@@0 -OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.@@@1 -While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.

My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.

I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.@@@0 -I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.@@@1 -I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!

However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.

1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.@@@0 -Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.@@@1 -This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.

Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.

As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough.@@@0 -

I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.@@@1 -A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.@@@0 -I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(@@@1 -TYSON

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King!@@@0 -I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids!@@@1 -As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.

The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)@@@0 -I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.@@@1 -Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western – which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch – the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise – and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame.@@@0 -The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.@@@1 -This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.

The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.

Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.

The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.

There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.

It's an OK film but instantly forgettable.@@@0 -This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.@@@1 -Fairly good movie, but not a true story.

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?

Jens@@@0 -Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable.@@@1 -A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept.@@@0 -Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.@@@1 -This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.@@@0 -Life's going not to badly for Harry Mitchell, he's an ex-air force major (plus nifty little pension I imagine), who's raking in the cash for a patent he's developed (fusing titanium and steel via explosive process, creating super metal fit for NASA), and his wife of twenty-odd years has kept herself in pretty good nick. He's got a nice little pad in LA. I like to see visions of the 80s consumer dream, and you get a good slice here, what with the restored silver Jag (a series 1 E-type roadster) for him, and the gorgeous antique dolls house for her (as well as I'm sure other trinkets and boys toys). There's always got to be more though hasn't there? So Harry let's himself get caught up in some romantic shenanigans (you're only as old as the woman you're feeling). As in many films noir, one mistake, in an otherwise blotch-less life, leads to a downwards arc for Harry.

Three blackmailers leech onto him. These are where the value are for me, great character actors playing very believable roles. Bobby Shy (played by Clarence Williams III) is a black ex-con who is capable of performing incredible psychopathic acts in order to avoid jail and punish double-crossers. He's reminiscent of Pluto, the vicious black ex-con psychopath from Carl Franklin's well-regarded neo-noir "One False Move" (1992). There's a similar character motivation I believe. Both men have had enough of the man, and well pretty much everyone, in extremis. Robert Trebor plays Leo Franks, a fat lily-livered pansy who runs a nudie parlour where gents can photograph nude models at $25 for half an hour, and $50 for a whole hour (did anyone else guffaw at the lack of discount?). He's in over his head, and it's great to watch Trebor acting when Leo starts to feel the heat, believable breakdown. John Glover wins as Alan Raimy, who is the brains of the plot, an actually brilliant man who becomes a pornographer and turns to a life of crime out of sheer sociopathic ennui. He's a sexual sadist and does a few particularly unpleasant things during the movie, including what I believe is a pretty well-implied rape (pay attention to his RAP sheet readout, it's easily missed, and read between the lines for the motel scene with "Slim").

In common with One False Move, though not exclusively, I think the real impact of the movie is in the unusually communicative scenes of violence.

So far so good but I think there's a real problem with the film. Harry Mitchell is told at one point that he has his "tit in the wringer". My problem is that Harry Mitchell is played by Roy Scheider. Roy Scheider protagonists never lose, they're self-sure and smooth, but not in an annoying way. I feel I'm being asked to believe that his character is in peril, the movie relies on this for dramatic tension; however I didn't believe it. For me it's like being asked to believe that Sandra Bullock's character is going to end up sleeping alone by the end of a romantic drama, or Stephen Seagal's character is going to get taken down by the baddies (did actually happen in one movie but was done deliberately for shock value). Roy Scheider doesn't convince as an adulterer either, you don't feel any annoyance with him at all, his character is Teflon-coated.

It also felt like a movie that took some cuts. At 110 minutes it still feels underdeveloped: Harry's wife, Ann Margaret, is pretty much a cardboard cutout, an extension of Harry, her back story as a politician running for office receives scant attention. The effect that the affair has on Harry's marriage isn't properly communicated. This could be a Frankenheimer problem, he's not known for character development. I never felt that Harry was dealing with little more than an overtly annoying and erroneous tax claim from the IRS.

There is good sleazy violent noir content in this film, but I feel that to be in the excellent bracket that the casting of Harry could have been done better (no disrespect to the great Roy Scheider). The film felt short, even with the long running time, and I think could have taken some more fleshing out.

But you really can't forget the sleaze, like the deliciously pervy scene of Harry taking photos of Doreen in the nudie parlour.@@@1 -Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.@@@0 -52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.@@@1 -When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.@@@0 -This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.@@@1 -If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.@@@0 -This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking "but I loved GET SHORTY" you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the "feel" for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday.@@@1 -This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.@@@0 -I've always liked this John Frankenheimer film. Good script by Elmore Leonard and the main reason this wasn't just another thriller is because of Frankenheimer. His taut direction and attention to little details make all the difference, he even hired porn star Ron Jeremy as a consultant! You can make a case that its the last good film Roy Scheider made. I've always said that Robert Trebor gave just a terrific performance. Clarence Williams III got all the publicity with his scary performance and he's excellent also but I really thought Trebor stood out. Frankenheimer may not be as proud of this film as others but it is an effective thriller full of blackmail, murder, sex, drugs, and real porno actors appear in sleazy parts. What can you say about a film that has Ann Margaret being shot up with drugs and raped? A guilty pleasure to say the least. Vanity has a real sleazy role and a very young Kelly Preston makes an early appearance. A classic exploitive thriller that shouldn't be forgotten.@@@1 -Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !@@@0 -Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+.@@@1 -I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.

But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.

Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.

It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.

After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.

I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.@@@0 -Spoilers!

From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!

If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?

After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up.

I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"

This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place.

Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty.

9 of 10 stars.

So sayeth the Hound.

Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!@@@1 -This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.

One and half stars.@@@0 -Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.@@@1 -Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the "film makers were then attacked" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.

Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by "the film makers were attacked" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said "Someone should beat those two kids up." The picture on the cover, "the chase" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.

I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's "Roger & Me", but if "Roger & Me" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, "Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.

Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, "HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!".

Morgan "Please Like Me" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.

Avoid like the plague.@@@0 -Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.

All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.

Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context.@@@1 -The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.

In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.

One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.

But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.

No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.

I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.@@@0 -Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making "boring." You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

"HealtH" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.@@@1 -This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.@@@0 -This is the definite Lars von Trier Movie, my favorite, I rank it higher than "Breaking the waves" or the latest "Dancer in the Dark"... I simply love the beauty of the picture...the framing is so original; acting is wonderful, A MUST SEE.@@@1 -I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.

There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.

Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.

'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.

Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.

And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.

Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.

To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.

I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.

A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.@@@0 -This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.

Season 1

1. The Sopranos: 5/5

2. 46 Long: 4.5/5

3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5

4. Meadowlands: 4/5

5. College:

6. Pax Soprana: 5/5

7. Down Neck: 4.5/5

8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5

9. Boca: 4.5/5

10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5

11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5

12. Isabella: 5/5

13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5@@@1 -Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.

God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted@@@0 -The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......@@@1 -I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering – literally – depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.@@@0 -Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.@@@1 -I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.@@@0 -"The Godfather" of television, but aside from it's acclaim and mobster characters, the two are nothing alike. Tony Soprano is forced to go to a psychiatrist after a series of panic attacks. His psychiatrist learns that Tony is actually part of two families -- in one family he is a loving father yet not-so-perfect-husband, and in the other family he is a ruthless wiseguy. After analysis, Dr. Melfi concludes that Tony's problems actually derive from his mother Livia, who's suspected to have borderline-personality disorder. Gandolfini is rightfully praised as the main character; yet Bracco and Marchand aren't nearly as recognized for their equally and talented performances as the psychiatrist and mother, respectively. Falco, Imperioli and DeMatteo are acclaimed for their brilliant supporting roles. Van Zandt (from the E-Street Band) plays his first and only role as Tony's best friend, and is quite convincing and latching. Chianese, the only recurring actor to have actually appeared in a Godfather film, plays Tony's uncle and on-and-off nemesis. Many fans also enjoyed characters played by Pastore, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, Pantoliano, Lip, Sciorra and Buscemi. Tony's children are "okay" but not notable (with the exception of Iler's stunning performance in the third-to-last episode, "The Second Coming"); Sirico and Schirripa are unconvincing and over-the-top, but the show is too strong for them to hold it back. Even as the show continues for over six season, it ceases to have a dull or predictable moment.

**** (out of four)@@@1 -OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest...@@@0 -As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.@@@1 -I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.

I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.

The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.

The special effects are bad.

The acting is bad.

The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.

I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.

I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.

And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.@@@0 -Though "The Sopranos" is yet another gift from the megahit "The Godfather" and sequels, which dramatized and to a certain extent glamorized the mafia, "The Sopranos" takes another tack. No suited up, classy mobsters here with homes in Lake Tahoe and stakes in Vegas casinos - these guys are goombahs, with a front of waste management, who deal with things that fall off the back of trucks, topless bars, protection money - in short, what the neighborhood mobs were all about.

Colorful characters dominate this series, which doesn't hold back on the sex and graphic violence. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mob head with a wife and two children, living in New Jersey, who suffers from panic attacks as he tries to balance his biological family with his mafia one. To get to the bottom of his attacks, he sees a psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), who is afraid of him and yet attracted to him at the same time. Tony's henchman - Paulie, his nephew Christopher, his Uncle Junior (the titular head of the mob), his good friend Pussy - are all fully fleshed-out characters.

As we learn going through the series, there are enemies not only from without, but from within, and one of those enemies includes Tony's sickly but horrible mother (Nancy Marchand), who convinces Junior that Tony is a danger to him. Tony's sister Janice, meanwhile, is searching for money in her mother's house with a stethoscope and a Geiger counter. Tony has mistress problems, and a wife (Edie Falco) who puts up with a lot because she loves him, all the while keeping ties to her Catholic religion. "The church frowns on divorce," she tells one woman contemplating a split. "Let the Pope live with him," is the response. As far as Tony's mistress problems, his psychiatrist points out that Tony is attracted to demanding women for whom nothing is ever enough, and asks him if it sounds familiar. Yeah, it sounds like his mother.

I'm of Italian descent, and yes, I'm sick of Italians being shown in a negative light and everyone assuming all Italians are mobsters. Yet you can't help liking this show, which is a constant reminder of our culture. (Thanksgiving, it's pointed out, isn't turkey and sweet potato pie - it's the antipasto, the manicotti, the meatballs and escarole, and then the bird!) Not to mention, the right-on pronunciation of words like melenzana (mullinyan), escarole (scarole), manicotti (manigot) etc. The only un-Italian thing about Tony is that he doesn't have a finished basement, something unheard of in the rest of my family (except my parents never had one either).

The standouts in this show are Gandolfini, as a ruthless gangster on antidepressants, Falco, who is brilliant as his wife, and Bracco as the tortured Jennifer. But everyone is excellent. If you can take the violence and the language, this is a great show, an unrelenting portrait of New Jersey mob life.@@@1 -IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...@@@0 -The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.

Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.

James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.

Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.

The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.

Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).

Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit.@@@1 -I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.

This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.

The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong.

The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away.@@@0 -The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.

The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it...@@@1 -This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.@@@0 -Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.@@@1 -Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.

The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.

As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.

In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!@@@0 -The Sopranos stands out as an airtight, dynamic exploration of American life, and how the American experience is shaped and defined by money. By setting the story in the milieu of the underworld, David Chase eliminates all barriers to a grunt, low to the ground and outright mean deconstruction of the post-modern era.

Every character represents a facet of American industry. Tony Soprano exemplifies the beleaguered working stiff, torn between familial duty and a need to keep his "business" on an even keel. The convergence of these two things is the imperative that keeps the story moving forward. The characters of Christopher, Paulie, and Bobby reflect the loyal - but self-serving underlings present in every enterprise, who are trusted out of necessity rather than merit. With the character of Ralph, Joe Pantoliano essays a brilliant interpretation of the charismatic psychopath, a twisted businessman who's flourishes of violence are tragically outweighed by his stunning earning power. And Dominic Chianese is the ultimate symbol of the antiquated old-guard, which maintains power through established relationships and the need of the up- and-comers to deflect blame.

Though abrasive and occasionally disturbing, The Sopranos has earned its place as the ultimate TV drama.

PS A good companion piece to Chase's series would be The Shield, another violent drama that manages to make the ugliest of characters interesting.@@@1 -I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!

I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)

==Here comes spoilers==

The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!@@@0 -I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie.@@@1 -One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.

If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?

I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.@@@0 -I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.

I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).

Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....

Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).@@@1 -I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.@@@0 -The Sopranos is perhaps the most mind-opening series you could possibly ever want to watch. It's smart, it's quirky, it's funny - and it carries the mafia genre so well that most people can't resist watching. The best aspect of this show is the overwhelming realism of the characters, set in the subterranean world of the New York crime families. For most of the time, you really don't know whether the wise guys will stab someone in the back, or buy them lunch.

Further adding to the realistic approach of the characters in this show is the depth of their personalities - These are dangerous men, most of them murderers, but by God if you don't love them too. I've laughed at their wisecracks, been torn when they've made err in judgement, and felt scared at the sheer ruthlessness of a serious criminal.

The suburban setting of New Jersey is absolutely perfect for this show's subtext - people aren't always as they seem, and the stark contrast between humdrum and the actions taken by these seemingly petty criminals weigh up to even the odds.

If you haven't already, you most definitely should.@@@1 -Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.

The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.

The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.

***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.

1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can.@@@0 -Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it.@@@1 -Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.

The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.

The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.

Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.@@@0 -I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.@@@1 -I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.@@@0 -It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......

From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!

While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)

But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?

Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.

All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled.@@@1 -I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.@@@0 -I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1@@@1 -One previous reviewer called this film "pure visual joy" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. "High Art" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since "Seven". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty?@@@0 -"The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4@@@1 -This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.@@@0 -Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.@@@1 -Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.

Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities.

The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.

Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy".

This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.

Give me Smiley any day.@@@0 -The "gangster" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichés that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you.@@@1 -This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police.

Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.

Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity@@@0 -There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV@@@1 -Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building.@@@0 -This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now.@@@1 -The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.@@@0 -Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons.

6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).

I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever.

Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase.@@@1 -You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".

The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.

The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").

In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.

Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.

I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek.@@@0 -As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance?@@@1 -I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.

It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...

This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.

Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.

This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!@@@0 -When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.

I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.

It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.

I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will.@@@1 -I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").

Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.@@@0 -Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)

I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.

Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading.@@@1 -Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.

Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.

What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.

The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.@@@0 -THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)

Number 1 - Television Show of all Time

Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.

James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.

While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.

The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.

Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.

Simply exceptional.

10/10@@@1 -I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.

First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all.

*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*

Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.@@@0 +I can only agree with taximeter that this is a fantastic film and should be seen by a wide audience. The imagination on display, the visual interpretation of the script, the humor is constantly surprising. The two leads are great and really carry the film. My advice would be to not even watch a trailer, just rent the film and watch without expectations. I rented from blockbuster, so it is readily available in brisbane, not everyone will enjoy it but i think most people will have an opinion and that's always good, unless it's just 'that was stupid'. I loved this film, you just don't get to see gem's like this every day. This should become a cult favorite. Give it a try, you may just feel the same way about it as i do.@@@1 +Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the "First Power": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.

This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately "The First Power" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.

The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.

Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:

4/10@@@0 +I thought this was an awesome movie. The theme song is sweet! :) Anyway, the only thing that somewhat bothered me was in the beginning, when everything should have been normal. It was very weird and unrealistic. The big cable company is mainly what I'm talking about. Apart from that, the movie was very creative. I think that all the acting was well done, the actors acted out their characters' personalities perfectly. Everything fit together well. It really is a shame that their isn't a soundtrack. That would have been great! Because this is a Canadian film, and because it is one of my favorites, I give this movie a 10 out of 10!@@@1 +I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...

1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.

2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.

3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.

4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.

5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.

6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.

7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.

And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.

4/10@@@0 +Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.@@@1 +Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.@@@0 +A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.@@@1 +The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.

But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.

Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?

By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.@@@0 +Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".@@@1 +When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.

"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.

Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.

"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!@@@0 +Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.

It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.

If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.

However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.

Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself!@@@1 +An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.@@@0 +I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed.@@@1 +

I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.

I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.

I dont recommend it, period.

@@@0 +I watched the trailer on the DVD after seeing the film, and I think anyone who saw it before watching the film would be very surprised and possibly disappointed. It made much of the fact that the film was "by the director of Cube" and made it look like a horror film, when in fact it is an Absurdist comedy (IMDB's spell checker doesn't seem to think that Absurdist is a word, but it is), reminiscent of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead.

I love the way the story builds up slowly at first, then gradually escalates. I also enjoy the fact that no explanation is given for what happens in the film. That and the fact that the story plays out mainly in just the one set are the only respects in which this film is similar to Cube. I recommend it.@@@1 +I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.@@@0 +Director Vincenzo Natali first showed his penchant for character-based sci-fi flicks with his 1997 short film "Elevated", wherein 3 people remain trapped in an elevator while unseen monsters roam the building. His follow-up feature project "Cube", released later that year, had a very similar premise, this time with 6 people and instead of an elevator it was a vast expansion of interlocking cubic deathtraps. Both were admirable attempts to take the sci-fi genre a step further, by deliberately declining to show almost any visual stimulation, choosing instead to spend as much time as possible focusing on the human element, how the characters act, react and interact under incomprehensible and dangerous conditions. After his exploration into the mainstream with 2002's "Cypher", Natali has come back to his bizarre character-film trend to bring us "Nothing", his latest, and by far most optimistic and comedic take on the wide cinematic world of "What If?"

Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) are life-long friends, brought together by a mutual detachment from society and a lack of any one else to be with. Dave, who has always been hindered by a selfish and somewhat dimwitted nature, lives rent-free with Andrew at his ill-located and ill-constructed house, where he often takes advantage of Andrew's neurotic and antisocial mentality. Despite all this, the two misfits are happy together, until one day their deep character flaws, coupled with some astronomically bad luck, land them in the middle of some pretty serious, jail-sentence-worthy trouble. On top of this, they discover that their house has been deemed unfit for existence and is scheduled to be demolished before sunset, so in the hazy, nightmarish panic of everything going wrong for them, they wish that the whole world would just disappear. And it does.

Going any further with the synopsis would compromise a lot of the film's slow (occasionally too slow) reveal about what's happened to Dave and Andrew, and how they deal with their new reality. Natali's fascination with studying human behavior under duress (ala The Birds) is here in spades, but simply by making the main characters friends rather than strangers, he's able to break away from the thriller-horror element of this premise to open it up to a more comfortable and optimistic level. It's almost as if he's made the aphoristic opposite of "Cube".

Of course, the film is not 85 minutes of laughter and sunshine. In keeping with fundamental realism, our two anti-heroes' dynamic often becomes antagonistic, sometimes with rather nasty results. Like the "Desert Island" game, the film looks at how even best friends, when left alone together, can fall apart, but at the same time it shows that friends are vital to the quality of existence. In a very twisted, sci-fi way, this is a feel-good flick, with good heart and good intentions.

However, there are a few qualms to be had with "Nothing". While the two lead actors, Hewlett and Miller, do well with their parts, their characters are not nearly as interesting as they should have been, considering it is completely up to them to entertain us for the better part of an hour. There is some development in the relationship and personalities of Dave and Andrew, some background is given, but ultimately not enough. A generous viewer will sit through the less-engaging portions of the film to see it through to the end, but cynics will probably give up pretty fast.

Acting, as mentioned, is adequate, and considering the amount of 'green-screen' work that would've been needed, reasonably convincing. David Hewlett and Andrew Miller, who both wrote co-wrote the screenplay, have been long-time friends of Vincenzo Natali: Hewlett has in fact featured in every film Natali has made. Perhaps it was their creative input that steered this film in a more positive direction. Nonetheless, the story could have been a lot more involving. Granted, it is relatively entertaining considering that (no pun intended) nothing really happens, but you get the impression that, in more experienced hands, a lot more could've been done with this premise.

In all fairness, "Nothing" is an impressive piece of work in many ways. The concept is interesting, the direction is inventive, the script works on a human level and, most of all, it shows a progression in Natali's creative mentality. For fans of his work, this will be a delight, and for others it will be a nice way to pass a little unwanted time. It's just a shame that the director's fixation on human drama prevented it from being the great, fun film it could have been.@@@1 +Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.@@@0 +I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)@@@1 +Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.@@@0 +If you want mindless action, hot chicks and a post-apocalyptic view of Seattle, then this is the show for you!

The concept of Dark Angel isn't anything new (in fact, there's controversy over whether James Cameron stole the idea from a book), but I spend the entire hour watching it every Tuesday from start to finish.

Jessica Alba is smoking and Max' friends (original Cindy, Kendra) are just as hot.

The fight scenes are getting better, but the dialogues between Original Cindy and Max need to be a little bit better (the slang sounds forced and it sounds like someone living in the suburbs wrote it).

In my opinion, Dark Angel is a great guilty pleasure filled with everything an action fan could ask for, but if you're looking for hard hitting, award-winning drama, go watch "The West Wing" or something.@@@1 +Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****@@@0 +I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....@@@1 +After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10@@@0 +Sitting, Typing… Nothing is the latest "what if?" fest offered by Vincenzio Natali, and starring David Hewlitt and Andrew Miller as two losers. One is having relationship problems, got canned from his job (because of relationship problems) and the police are out to get him (because of his job and his relationship problems). The other guy is a agoraphobic who refuses to go outside his home, is met by a bothersome girl guide who calls on her Mom to claim she was molested when he doesn't buy cookies from him. Oh yeah, the police are after him too, after the Mom of the girl scout call them in to arrest him.

Man, what a day.

What if you could make all of this disappear? That is the whole premise behind 'Nothing'. The two fools realize, the cops, the girl scout, the cars, the lawn, the road, everything… disappear. There's nothing but white space! This is an interesting concept I thought. I also looked at the time of this, 30 minutes had gone in the movie, and I still had an hour left in the movie. Could the 2 actors make this work and keep us entertained for 60 minutes? Although the actors try, 60 minutes IS a long time and there is clearly dead air in places of this movie. But the two actors, whom are life-long friends with each other and the director, have such great repertoire with each other, that it was fun to watch for the dialogue and improve goofing around the two do. There are lots of supernatural elements, but it's more of their response to these elements that ultimately make this film worth seeing.@@@1 +Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).@@@0 +Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****@@@1 +This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?

Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.@@@0 +... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...@@@1 +I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this@@@0 +NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)@@@1 +An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.

My grade: D-

DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment@@@0 +The premise of this movie has been tickling my imagination for quite some time now. We've all heard or read about it in some kind of con-text. What would you do if you were all alone in the world? What would you do if the entire world suddenly disappeared in front of your eyes? In fact, the last part is actually what happens to Dave and Andrew, two room-mates living in a run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. Andrew is a nervous wreck to say the least and Dave is considered being one of the biggest losers of society. That alone is the main reason to why these two guys get so well along, because they simply only have each other to turn to when comforting is needed. Just until...

Straight from the beginning of the film lots and lots of problems happen to them. Both of them get involved with crime, Andrew suffers from paranoia and simply doesn't dare going out of the house. Dave is unsuccessful at his job and his colleagues don't treat him very well and with the respect he deserves. The amount of problems they face keeps increasing until that one day where they may have to face the inevitable and deal with it. This is just too much for them and they wish that everything would just go away... And of course that is exactly what happens.

The rest of the story places Dave and Andrew in this world of nothingness. At first they are surprised and have problems understanding and dealing with the features of this crazy environment, but later on they find out that they can do just about everything they want because it seems as if they are the only ones still left.

Nothing features an incredibly small cast - in fact, besides the first couple of shots from the film, we only see Dave (David Hewlett) and Andrew (Andrew Miller) in the entire film. It is clear that in order to pull this off, the cast has to be more than up for the task, because in a world where nothing exists there is nothing that can distract the viewer in any way. Vincenzo has decided to use a reasonable amount of close-up head shots to make it more interesting and it actually works quite well. Director of Photography, Derek Rogers, also has a nice way of teasing the audience by withholding visual information, especially at times where a character sees something and reacts to it, but we don't see it right away.

Obviously, this can't be an event driven film and it's not. Much of the action happens outside their house when they move around in the void. And that's where some of the most hilarious scenes take place, especially in the case of when Andrew discovers a candy bar.

Now, one could be thinking: "How does nothing look like?" Well, it looks like nothing indeed. The entire world of nothing is white... white no matter in what direction you look. This is the weakness of this film... After an hour or less it's getting extremely boring to look at and there has to be events to make sure it's more interesting to look at. Thank God, there are some. For example at times when the two lads, due to the properties of nothing, are able to jump really high as if nothing is made out of... tofu (as Andrew claims). It's fun to see how they are instantly able to use nothing to become gods of their own little society.

One of the best parts of the film is the set... Production designer Jasna Stefanovic has done a beautiful job in this film, the house in which these two guys live is so unnaturally fun to look at, still it seems right for these two to be living in a place like this. All in all, the production design is with no doubt one of the most powerful aspects of this film at it really makes the film worth watching...

However, the very best part of the film is the acting. Both David Hewlett and Andrew Miller really look like the professional actors they both are. The camera is on them for every second of the film and as previously said, there are just about no props in the film, they are really on a bare stage. With plenty of character development and some decent one-liners, clever dialogue (at times hilariously stupid), it all works to that end - and this really moves the movie away from the low-budget area to well-crafted handwork.

Let's talk a little about the visual effects, because they are definitely worth mentioning. Nothing features digital visual effects and prosthetics that equals any modern horror film. There's a rather horrifying dream sequence in the film, and although The Drews have milked that scene completely it's still fun to watch. One of the best visual effects in the film is at the end where Andrew and Dave suddenly discover their powers in this environment - they have the abilities to wish everything away, so what if they can do it the other way around and make things appear?

"Nothing" is a bright and well-lit movie, it really helps promoting the idea of them probably being dead (this is in fact one of their theories), but "Nothing" is a comedy and it slowly destroys its own theory. We don't know where they are or what has happened to them. We don't know if they will ever get out, because the movie ends before we see anything like that. The ending, by the way, is not as good as it could've been. It's rather easy to predict what is going to happen, still the writers have thought up a few incidents that help make it a little more interesting and in the end, it's a reasonably satisfactory one.

Take "Hollow Man", "Kill Bill", "Cube", "Epoch" and lots of other films and you have "Nothing". It really is an amalgam of different styles, still there is no other film (at least that I know of) Nothing is really like. For the people remembering the original Cube Production Commentary on its DVD may remember that Vincenzo Natali talked about how he came up with the story of Cube. He talks about him and André Bijelic having been room-mates at a time and they both were in this extremely dull room with no hope of getting out, "Nothing" could very well be the screened version of the origin of the Cube story, and to that end, it's almost like one of the Cube prequels.

What can I say? I enjoyed "Nothing", it is a great movie and the different parts of the movie are extremely well-made with tons of intelligent ideas, still I feel the movie is missing something and I have problems finding out precisely what it is... Maybe if we have a "Nothing 2" I can answer that question. "Nothing" is a great film, but not as good as I expected it to be.

Final rating: 7.5 / 10@@@1 +First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...@@@0 +I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.@@@1 +This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.@@@0 +Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame!@@@1 +It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.@@@0 +

Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious.

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.

@@@1 +I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!@@@0 +I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!@@@1 +'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.

Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').

'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'—all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.

This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.@@@0 +all i have to say is if you don't like it then there is something wrong with you. plus Jessica is just all kinds of hot!!!!! the only reason you may not like it is because it is set in the future where Seattle has gone to hell. that and you my not like it cause the future they show could very well happen.@@@1 +*Spoiler warning*

First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.

The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone.

She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps.

Her friends are unbelievably nasty.

The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?

A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?@@@0 +Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10@@@1 +A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.

There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)@@@0 +089: Footlight Parade (1933) - released 9/30/1933, viewed 5/5/07.

The ice cream cone is invented in New York.

KEVIN: After a long and busy break, we hit another Busby Berkeley musical from Warner Bros. This time it's the ultra-fast paced Footlight Parade, starring James Cagney as juggernaut stage producer Chester Kent. I am 100% certain that Cagney was channeling Berkeley with his performance of the irrepressible Kent, who has to come up with new ideas for performances every minute. Joan Blondell is also excellent as the acid-tongued secretary-turned-love interest. The Ruby Keeler/Dick Powell subplot is not as major this time but no less enjoyable. One thing that baffled me was Berkeley's performances themselves, which seemed far too extravagant and complex to be performed on any stage, let alone a stage that would be showing a film afterwards. Obviously Busby doesn't let a little thing like story impede him from putting together the most over-the-top musical numbers he can possibly conjure. I liked nearly all of this movie until the end, with the shamelessly offensive number "Shanghai Lil," which, as one can guess, is about as stomach-turning as racially distasteful performances come.

DOUG: Six movies in three months. Got to be a new record. Anyway…this completes Warner Bros.' musical trilogy of 1933, preceded by '42nd Street' and 'Gold Diggers of 1933.' I would definitely recommend watching all three in a row. I wonder if James Cagney was channeling Busby Berkeley while he was playing Chester Kent in this movie, or if that the role as written was inspired by Busby. I hope it was; it seems to make sense that Berkeley is the kind of guy who would see elaborate dances in everyday occurrences the way Chester does. The funny thing about Cagney was that he didn't really look like a leading man in the traditional sense. He was 5'7", square-headed, and talked with an odd New York accent. But the guy was quite versatile, going from the venomous gangsters that made him so famous to the fast-talking producer-types we see here. And he could dance. Basically he was a leading man in the body of a character actor. The rest of the cast has some familiar faces; Joan Blondell returns and just about steals the show as Cagney's loyal and lusting secretary; Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler play the cute couple, but seem to get less screen time than before; Billy Barty pops up again as the mischievous imp. The movie is typical of the more racy and adult-oriented musicals of the pre-Code era, as opposed to those of the 50's and 60's that were more family oriented, and is an excellent climax of the Warner musicals of that year (the "Shanghai Lil" number not withstanding, with Keeler doing a poor job at looking Chinese).

Last film: Dinner At Eight (1933). Next film: I'm No Angel (1933).@@@1 +I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either.@@@0 +Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.@@@1 +This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.@@@0 +Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache.@@@1 +Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?@@@0 +The wit and pace and three show stopping Busby Berkley numbers put this ahead of the over-rated 42nd Street. This is the definitive 30's musical with a knockout frenetic performance from Jimmy Cagney. One of the last releases before the Motion Picture Production Code was strictly enforced. A must see.@@@1 +The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.@@@0 +In 1933 Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler sang and danced their way through three Warner Brother musicals that offered Depression era audiences a momentary distraction from their woes. Gold Diggers of 1933, 42nd Street and Footlight Parade were all set in the world of Broadway Theatre with basically the same theme of the show must go on. In addition to Keeler and Powell the films featured the kaleidiscopic choreography of Busby Berkeley, show stopping tunes and many of the same supporting players.

All are arguably classics of their genre but I must admit a clear preference for Footlight due to it's pace energy and lead James Cagney. Warren William in Gold Diggers and Warner Baxter in 42nd Street acquit themselves admirably as the shows production heads- particularly Baxter as the burned out Julian Marsh in search of one last box office smash. Both lack the infectious energy of Cagney however, who perfectly compliments the frenetic pace of putting on a Broadway musical. He is an absolute whirlwind as he deals with production numbers, unscrupulous partners and a gold digging girlfriend.

Of course Cagney alone does not make Footlight the classic that it is. The script crackles with some sharp double entendres delivered by a superlative supporting cast featuring Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee and especially Joan Blondell who cuts everyone down to size. Busby Berkeley's dance numbers are surreal, suggestive and risqué and done just in the nick of time before the arrival of the Hollywood Code in 34. Sadly, the thirties and sometime beyond would never see such a richly made musical with the verve and sass of Footlight again. Gentility and morality made sure of it.@@@1 +You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.@@@0 +Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.@@@1 +While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.@@@0 +A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated.@@@1 +I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.@@@0 +I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.

I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.

Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.

Thanks so much.@@@1 +Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.

As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.

I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.

Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.

In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.@@@0 +Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.

The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.

This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be.@@@1 +I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.@@@0 +How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?@@@1 +Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.

When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home.

The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.

The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity.

This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.@@@0 +It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line.

And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done.

Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty.

And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not.

First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs.

Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious.

And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes.

That's entertainment, folks. It's great!

Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.@@@1 +Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!@@@0 +James Cagney is best known for his tough characters- and gangster roles but he has also played quite a lot 'soft' characters in his career. This musical is one of them and it was the first but not the last musical movie Cagney would star in.

Cagney is even doing a bit of singing in this one and also quite an amount of dancing. And it needs to be said that he was not bad at it. He plays the role with a lot of confidence. He apparently had some dancing jobs in his early life before his acting career started to take off big time, so it actually isn't a weird thing that he also took on some musical acting roles in his career. He obviously also feels at ease in this totally different genre than most people are accustomed to seeing him in.

The movie is directed by Lloyd Bacon, who was perhaps among the best and most successful director within the genre. His earliest '30's musicals pretty much defined the musical genre and he also was responsible for genre movies such as "42nd Street". His musicals were always light and fun to watch and more comedy like than anything else really. '30's musicals never were really about its singing, this was something that more featured in '40's and later made musicals, mainly from the MGM studios.

As usual it has a light and simple story, set in the musical world, that of course is also predictable and progresses in a formulaic way. It nevertheless is a fun and simple story that also simply makes this an entertaining movies to watch. So do the characters and actors that are portraying them. Sort of weird though that that the total plot line of the movie gets sort of abandoned toward the end of the movie, when the movie only starts to consists out of musical number routines.

The musical moments toward the ending of the movie are also amusing and well done, even though I'm not a too big fan of the genre itself. Once again the musical numbers also feature a young Billy Barty. he often played little boys/babies/mice and whatever more early on in his career, including the movie musical "Gold Diggers of 1933", of one year earlier.

A recommendable early genre movie.

8/10@@@1 +my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob@@@0 +I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.@@@1 +***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.@@@0 +An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!!@@@1 +I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.@@@0 +This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is.@@@1 +With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.@@@0 +Fast-paced, funny, sexy, and spectacular. Cagney is always terrific. Blondel charms you with her wit and energy. It's obvious that this is a pre-censorship film by the innuendo in the script, the costumes,and the way they touch each other. And bikinis before there were bikinis! This is no holds barred fun for everyone. I don't understand the John Garfield issue though. Does it matter whether or not he's in this film? If he is, he screen is so short that he's basically a prop. You need to watch it frame by frame to even find him if he's there. I'm a big Cagney fan, but had never seen this one before. I found it on Turner Classics. I found it by wonderful accident. Sit back and enjoy the ride!@@@1 +Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.@@@0 +When it came out, this was pretty much state of the art musical film entertainment. To this day it's more entertaining than most, in great part because it has James Cagney in the lead role as a musical prologue producer under a succession of deadlines and sheltered from all storms by his trusty "girl Friday" played by Joan Blondell. Also the musical numbers towards the end which were put together by Busby Berkeley are pretty much a knock-out as far as that type of thing goes.

But this is a pretty strange movie. I mean in one of those numbers, you've got Billy Barty running around pretending to be a lovable toddler, doing all kinds of weird stuff. Ruby Keeler seems to have a sickening smile plastered on her face at all times, but at least she's not required to act like in some of her later unfortunate films. You'd never guess that Dick Powell was any kind of tough guy from seeing him in this movie; apparently all the tough guy energy was allocated to the star Cagney. As for Cagney, his high speed rants about musical shows and so forth are endearing and annoying at the same time. After a while it gets a bit too much. You expect him to walk out and say, "Hey! I've got a great idea for a prologue! The women are cigarettes, and they come out of a pack of smokes! Oh no, we did that one last month!" It's funny but it gets a bit repetitive. In the moments where he has to get tough with the bad girl, Ruth Donnelly, some of the established Cagney gangster character comes out. In fact frequent B gangster director William Keighley is credited here with dialogue coaching, and it seems at times that Cagney and Blondell are invoking something very "street" even though the characters aren't criminal.

The musical numbers... what can you say? They stand alone as entertainment, the way that Berkeley uses the human body and geometry is really startling. But none of them really mean anything. It means "Honeymoon Hotel", nothing really more or less. And the whole pretense of the integration falls apart immediately, since the characters in the show are doing things that couldn't possibly be appreciated by a theater audience like the movie portrays. For example at one point they show the fine print on a newspaper, things like that. The whole thing could only exist on film, so the idea that the prologues are actually live shows is ridiculous. I can only suppose that audiences of the time were somewhat less critical about things like this than they would be ten years later or so, because this is a very polished production.

It's great to see Cagney himself show off his superb dancing skills, and he can actually share the stage with a dancer like Keeler. Cagney and Blondell have excellent chemistry and their scenes go off really well. The music I would say is only mediocre, but mostly pleasing if repetitive. Bacon's direction in general is very suitable but never interesting. The film's entertainment value is unquestionable and it has also picked up some nostalgic value along the way. It's a cut above most "let's put on a show" films of the 30s.@@@1 +I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.

Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.@@@0 +Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.

The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.

I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and...@@@1 +Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.@@@0 +"Footlight Parade" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. "42nd Street" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.

While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.

While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.

It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.

7 out of 10@@@1 +Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.@@@0 +The energetic young producer of theatrical prologues (those staged performances, usually musical, that often proceeded the movie in the larger cinemas in bygone days) must deal with crooked competition, fraudulent partners, unfaithful lovers & amateur talent to realize his dream of making his mark on the FOOTLIGHT PARADE.

While closely resembling other Warner's musical spectaculars, notably the GOLDDIGGER films, this movie had a special attraction none of the others had: Jimmy Cagney. He is a wonder, loose-jointed and lithe, as agile as any tomcat - a creature he actually mimics a few times during the movie. Cagney grabs the viewers attention & never lets go, powering the rapid-fire dialogue and corny plot with his charisma & buoyant charm.

The rest of the cast gives their best, as well. Joan Blondell is perfect as the smart-mouthed, big-hearted blonde secretary, infatuated with Cagney (major quibble - why wasn't she given a musical number?). Dick Powell & Ruby Keeler once again play lovers onstage & off; the fact that her singing & acting abilities are a bit on the lean side are compensated for by her dancing ; Powell still exudes boyish enthusiasm in his unaccustomed position as second male lead.

Guy Kibbee & Hugh Herbert are lots of fun as brothers-in-law, both scheming to cheat Cagney in different ways. Ruth Donnelly scores as Kibbee's wealthy wife, a woman devoted to her handsome protégés. Frank McHugh's harried choreographer is an apt foil for Cagney's wit. Herman Bing is hilarious in his one tiny scene as a music arranger. Mavens will spot little Billy Barty, Jimmy Conlin & maybe even John Garfield during the musical numbers.

Finally, there's Busby Berkeley, choreographer nonpareil. His terpsichorean confections, sprinkled throughout the decade of the 1930's, were a supreme example of the cinematic escapism that Depression audiences wanted to enjoy. The big joke about Berkeley's creations, of course, was that they were meant, as part of the plot, to be stage productions. But no theater could ever hold these products of the master's imagination. They are perfect illustrations of the type of entertainment only made possible by the movie camera.

Berkeley's musical offerings generally took one of two different approaches, either a story (often rather bizarre) told with song & dance; or else stunning geometrically designed numbers, eye candy, featuring plentiful chorus girls, overhead camerawork & a romantic tune. In a spasm of outré extravagance, FOOTLIGHT PARADE climaxes with three Berkeley masterworks: `Honeymoon Hotel' and its pre-Production Code telling of a couple's wedding night; `By A Waterfall' - dozens of unclad females, splashing, floating & diving in perfect patterns & designs (peer closely & you'll see how the synchronous effects were achieved); and finally, `Shanghai Lil' - a fitting tribute to the talents of both Cagney & Berkeley.@@@1 +According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!@@@0 +I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.@@@1 +I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.

So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well.@@@0 +This fabulous movie must be viewed knowing that millions scraped together 10 cents to see it and forget the gloomy day-to-day economic conditions during the 30's. Remember, 10 cents bought a loaf of bread back then, so this was a minor luxury for many people. It's testimony to how Hollywood did its best to make the USA feel a little better about itself. You'll note that with the studio system in Hollywood at the time many of the actors and actresses were type-cast in similar movies, e.g. James Cagney, William Powell, Ruby Keeler, Frank McHugh, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee . Then too, branches of the U.S. military were always respected with enthusiasm and patriotism as in the use of military precision marching by the great choreographer, Busby Berkeley, at the end.@@@1 +I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.

I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.

This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.

I took the DVD back to the store the same day!@@@0 +An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.

The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be.

In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."

Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.

Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color.

Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen.@@@1 +There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.@@@0 +It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In "Yankee Doodle Dandy" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially "Shanghai Lil." And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch.@@@1 +At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.@@@0 +The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.

In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.

Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.

Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch.

Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil.

Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.

Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.

Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best.@@@1 +I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.@@@0 +"Footlight Parade" is fascinating on so many levels. There is no way the supposedly staged "theater prologues" could have been produced in any theater on earth, of course. Think of the huge pools and three-story tall fountains for "By A Waterfall," for instance. (Berkeley directed John Garfield in "They Made Me a Criminal" six years later and had the Dead End Kids singing "By a Waterfall" as they took their showers.)

"Shanghai Lil" is the best production number in the picture. It's a catalog of '30s Warner Bros. sensibilities. Note the African guys mixed into the scene with white and Asian prostitutes. You would never see blacks integrated into a social scene in other films of the period unless they were porters on a train or maids in a big house. Here the black guys are sitting at the bar and singing with the others. I also get a thrill when the military dancers do a "card section" presentation of Roosevelt's image. There's also the NRA eagle--the logo of the controversial National Recovery Administration of the New Deal. FDR was the new president and hopes were so high that he'd pull the nation out of the Depression. You'd never see something so working class oriented coming out of MGM, of course. Warner Bros. wholeheartedly supported the uplift dictated by the F.D.R. administration.

Dear little Miss Ruby Keeler was never better than she is playing the Chinese hooker, "Lil." She hardly even watches her feet as she dances, which was one of her signature flaws.

The Pre-Code stuff is fun. The "By a Waterfall" number is wonderful in that regard. The girls change into their bathing suits on the crowded bus speeding through Times Square with all its lights on. The spread-eagle girls swimming over the camera provide the kind of crotch shots that would not be seen for 35 years. In a few months the Production Code would eliminate such naughty pleasures.@@@1 +The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!

The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.@@@0 +Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.

Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.

Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.

The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.

Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.@@@1 +Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.

Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.

It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.@@@0 +A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.@@@1 +This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.@@@0 +This movie is not schlock, despite the lo fi production and its link to Troma productions. A dark fable for adults. Exploitation is a theme of Sugar Cookies, and one wonders if the cast has not fallen prey to said theme. A weird movie with enticing visuals: shadows and contrast are prominent. Definitely worth a look, especially from fans of Warhol and stylish decadence. Through all the cruelty and wickedness, a moral, albeit twisted, can be gleamed.@@@1 +There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.

Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.

aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.

this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.

anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.@@@0 +Starting off, here's a synopsis: Porno queen Alta Lee (Lynn Lowry) is murdered by her pornographer lover Max (George Shannon) in a game of sexual Russian roulette. Alta's other lover, icy lesbian casting agent Camila Stone (Mary Woronov), provides an alibi for Max. But Camila has an agenda of her own, and a plan involving the seduction of innocent actress Julie (Lynn again) in a web of sexual mind games. When the lookalikes' identities are sufficiently blurred, the stage is set for vengeance as passionate as the most heated carnal encounter.

Though this movie is quite obscure and never got much attention, I find it to be a sexy, suspenseful gem. Cult goddess Woronov has one of her best-ever roles, and she and sexy-innocent Lowry play off each other well. The unsettling music provided by Gershon Kingsley, plus two original songs ("All-American Boy," "You Say You've Never Let Me Down") and the Jaynetts' "Sally, Go 'Round the Roses" compose a memorable soundtrack. Theodore Gershuny's direction is sharp, with everything photographed in muted earth tones that perfectly suggest unsavory business bubbling under society's upper crust. With tons of great New York atmosphere, Ondine (Woronov's friend and fellow Warholite) giving a great performance in a small role, and exotic Monique Van Vooren as Max's ex-wife in a comic sub-plot. This sub-plot, though amusing, looks like it belongs in another movie altogether. However, I'm not complaining, as the film is smooth even as it changes gears and is a hell of a lot more interesting that the erotic-thriller garbage currently being cranked out.

Trivia: Sugar Cookies was originally rated X (soft-core) and released by General Film Corporation in 1973. I am the proud owner of an original one-sheet poster--lucky me! In 1977, the movie was cut for an R and re-released by Troma Team, which now offers it uncut on videotape. Mary Woronov was the wife of Theodore Gershuny at the time, and was reportedly uncomfortable performing the graphic lesbian simulated sex scenes with him leering behind the camera. She can also be seen in two of his earlier productions, Kemek (1970) and Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972).@@@1 +This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.@@@0 +I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.

I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.

Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV.@@@1 +Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return.

This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.@@@0 +this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today.@@@1 +No Fireworks Despite Violent Action.

Science fiction films that reflect quality are scarce indeed, largely because transposal of imaginative themes from the genre to the screen too often falls short of effective execution as a result of insufficient funding or inadequate invention, and unfortunately for its producers, this work is lacking on both counts, woefully so in the case of the latter. With essentially no budget with which to operate, it is a grave mistake to attempt the depiction of such a gamut of events as those within this scenario and, in particular, special effects of space opera warfare which appear only clownish, while seeds from the scriptors' imagination lie fallow due to some of the most fatuous misunderstanding of basic scientific principles to be found. Among these are frequent firing of weapons within a sealed environment, and a wayward law of gravity which enables freedom of movement of cast members while inanimate objects float weightlessly, but it is easier to accept these than it is to pretend that any of the episodes have a basis in plausibility. The plot involves an escape of life sentenced prisoners from a space station penal colony to a waste landfill upon our moon and their various attempts to obtain passage back to Earth, with some few capable players present who are execrably directed by first-timer Paolo Mazzucato, whose production team wastes effort upon such as holographic pornography while ignoring a pressing and basic requirement for the creation of states of suspense and of impetus.

@@@0 +This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.

The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!

Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!

Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD!@@@1 +This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!@@@0 +There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing@@@1 +We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell.

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.@@@0 +Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.@@@1 +I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.@@@0 +My cable TV has what's called the Arts channel, which is a "catch-as-catch-can" situation sometimes, sometimes films, sometimes short clips of films or ballets, and I came into this just as the bar scene came on, where they tear up their coupons. Excellent, exquisite, Ealing wins again, my wartime-Glasgow-raised mother would love this, should I ever find a copy of it. Some of Britain's best artists, from Mr Holloway to Wayne and Radford and the delicious Miss Rutherford, having a wonderful time gently sticking it to the Home Office. Loved the last scene, where as soon as they are "back in England!" the temperature plummets and it rains...@@@1 +The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.@@@0 +Passport to Pimlico is a real treat for all fans of British cinema. Not only is it an enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining comedy, but it is a cinematic flashback to a bygone age, with attitudes and scenarios sadly now only a memory in British life.

Stanley Holloway plays Pimlico resident Arthur Pemberton, who after the accidental detonation of an unexploded bomb, discovers a wealth of medieval treasure belonging to the 14th Century Duke of Burgundy that has been buried deep underneath their little suburban street these last 600 years.

Accompanying the treasure is an ancient legal decree signed by King Edward IV of England (which has never been officially rescinded) to state that that particular London street had been declared Burgandian soil, which means that in the eyes of international law, Pemberton and the other local residents are no longer British subjects but natives of Burgundy and their tiny street an independent country in it's own right and a law unto itself.

This sets the war-battered and impoverished residents up in good stead as they believe themselves to be outside of English law and jurisdiction, so in an act of drunken defiance they burn their ration books, destroy and ignore their clothing coupons, flagrantly disregard British licencing laws etc, declaring themselves fully independent from Britain.

However, what then happens is ever spiv, black marketeer and dishonest crook follows suit and crosses the 'border' into Burgundy as a refuge from the law and post-war restrictions to sell their dodgy goods, and half of London's consumers follow them in order to dodge the ration, making their quiet happy little haven, a den of thieves and a rather crowded one at that.

Appealing to Whitehall for assistance, they are told that due to developments this is "now a matter of foreign policy, which His Majesty's Government is reluctant to become involved" which leaves the residents high and dry. They do however declare the area a legal frontier and as such set up a fully equipped customs office at the end of the road, mainly to monitor smuggling than to ensure any safety for the residents of Pimlico.

Eventually the border is closed altogether starting a major siege, with the Bugundian residents slowly running out of water and food, but never the less fighting on in true British style. As one Bugundian resident quotes, "we're English and we always were English, and it's just because we are English, we are fighting so hard to be Bugundians"

A sentiment that is soon echoed throughout the capital as when the rest of London learn of the poor Bugundians plight they all feel compelled to chip in and help them, by throwing food and supplies over the barbed wire blockades.

Will Whitehall, who has fought off so may invaders throughout the centuries finally be brought to it's knees by this new batch of foreigners, especially as these ones are English!!!!

Great tale, and great fun throughout. Not to be missed.@@@1 +I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!@@@0 +My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called "Thatcher's Britain", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to "The Ladykillers" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially "Passport to Pimlico".

Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico "declaring itself independent" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.

Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the "Burgundians", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.

Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in "The Man in the White Suit" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", or as part of a larger community as happens in "Whisky Galore" or "The Titfield Thunderbolt". The central theme of "Passport" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the "spivs" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a "rules for rules' sake" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.

I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is "We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.

Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.

There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10@@@1 +I'm sorry for Jean, after having such a good original movie to be followed up by perhaps his worst movie in is career. This movie was shot down terribly by horrible acting jobs by Goldbeg(Romeo) and whatever that computers name was. Also, some scenes may have been just a little unnesicary. Truly, bad movie.@@@0 +Every time this film is on the BBC somebody in the Radio Times says how it is a satire against the post war world of rationing and the welfare state. I do not think this is the point of the film at all. The film parodies the spivs(small time criminals who ran the blackmarket) and the housewives league who campaigned against government restrictions but were really a Tory front organisation.

Yes of course the film sends up the political/social situation but in the end the people realise that they need all the controls to ensure a fair society,they want to be British and muddle through rather than foreign.

But I don't think they go back to being exactly like they were before.@@@1 +Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.

I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.

Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.

1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.

Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?

John Ulmer@@@0 +I commend pictures that try something different. Many films just seem like re-treads of old ideas, so that is the big reason I so strongly recommend Passport to Pimlico.

The movie is set just after WW2 and the post-war shortages and rationing seem to be driving Londoners "barmy". The film centers on a tiny neighborhood in London called Pimlico. They, too, are sick of not being able to buy what they want but can see no way out of it. That is until they accidentally stumble upon a hidden treasure and a charter which officially named this neighborhood as a sovereign nation many hundreds of years ago! With this document, they reason, they can bypass all the rationing and coupons and live life just as they want, since it turns out they really AREN'T British subjects! Where the movie goes from there and how the crisis is ultimately resolved is something you'll need to see for yourselves. Leave it up the brilliant minds of Ealing Studios to come up with this gem!@@@1 +This movie was absolutly awful. I can't think of one thing good about it. The plot holes were so huge you could drive a Hummer through them. The acting was soo stuningly bad that even Jean Claude should be ashamed, and that is saying alot!!! And dialogue, What dialogue???To think that I was a fan of the first one (I use that comment loosely, its more like a guilty pleasure, than anything else). This movie had Goldberg in it for crying out loud!!!! Nothing good can come of this movie. What makes this film even worse is that it is soo bad you can't even watch it with a bunch of friends to make fun of!!! This has got to be in my top five worst movies of all time. 2/10 because it is soo hard for me to give a 1.@@@0 +Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10.@@@1 +this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.@@@0 +SPOILERS Many different comedy series nowadays have at one point or another experimented with the idea of obscure independence. In an early episode of cartoon "Family Guy" the Griffin family find their home is an independent nation to the United States of America and the story progresses from there. Way back in 1949 however, the Ealing Studios produced a wonderful little film along the same idea.

After a child's prank, the residents of Pimlico discover a small fortune in treasure. At the inquest it becomes clear that the small area is a small outcrop of the long lost state of Burgundy. Withdrawing from London and the rest of Great Britain, the residents of the small street experience the joys and the problems with being an independent state.

Based at a time when rationing was still in operation, this story is brilliantly told and equally inspiring. Featuring performances by Stanley Holloway, Betty Warren, Philip Stainton and a young Charles Hawtrey, the film is well stocked with some of the finest actors of their generation. These actors are well aided as well by a superb little script with some cracking lines. Feeling remarkably fresh, despite being over 50 years old, the story never feels awkward and always keeps the audience entertained.

Ealing Studios was one of the finest exporters of British film ever in existence. With films like "Passport to Pimlico" it's not difficult to see why. Amusing from start to finish, the story is always fun and always worth watching.@@@1 +** HERE BE SPOILERS **

The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme).

This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.

So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...

2/10@@@0 +I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether.@@@1 +I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.

It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.

If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.@@@0 +Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.@@@1 +There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

@@@0 +This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well.@@@1 +I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.

Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.

Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.@@@0 +This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.

The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.

Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.

Welcome to Burgundy!@@@1 +This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.@@@0 +I have to say I totally loved the movie. It had it's funny moments, some heartwarming parts, just all around good. Me, personally, really liked the movie because it's something that finally i can relate to my childhood. This movie, in my opinion, is geared more towards the young gay population. It shows how a young gay boy would be treated while growing up. All the taunting, name-calling, and not knowing is something I, like most other young feminine boys, will always remember, and now finally a movie that illustrates how hard it really is to grow up gay. So, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. Probably shouldn't really watch it until a person is old and mature enough to understand it@@@1 +This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.

The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.

Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.@@@0 +I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).

So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.

And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer.@@@1 +I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.

Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.

What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.

Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.@@@0 +Henry Thomas showed a restraint, even when the third act turned into horrible hollywood resolution that could've killed this movie, that kept the dignity of a redemption story and as for pure creepiness-sniffing babies?@@@1 +This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.

* out of 4(Bad)@@@0 +This film has good characters with excellent performances from the cast. David Strathairn is diabolically sincere as the child molesting salesman and Danny Vinson plays a perfect pussy-whipped southern husband. The slick soundtrack betrays the murder ballad tone of the film.@@@1 +This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.

Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.@@@0 +I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.@@@1 +After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.

We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo!

Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel.

From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!@@@0 +Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.@@@1 +Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies.

In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following).

Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".

Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film.

After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).

You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.

So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!@@@0 +This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look.@@@1 +I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.@@@0 +I saw this film last night on cable and it is extraordinary. What I love most about it is that it is understated and low-key, but deeply heartfelt. Henry Thomas' (he played the child in E.T.) performance is masterfully inarticulate (he is supposed to be a man of few words). David Straithern is a wonderful crazy villain. And miraculously (given that we're talking about a Hollywood product here) a baby serves as a main character, but one who doesn't act or have lines, but rather just IS (& is luminous at that). Interesting to note that Thomas' mysterious relationship w. E.T. was the core of that film; while his bond w. the baby serves as the core of "A Good Baby."

Then there is the music--ah, what music!! Gillian Welch's tunes are wonderful & the entire score is gorgeous hill country music.

This film is wonderfully atmospheric. I recommend it highly.@@@1 +OK I saw this movie to get a benchmark for bad but with this movie it's Unisol's best movie now plot Luc Devereux is now a technical expert who is working with the government with his partner Maggie, who's been through countless hours of training and combat with him, to refine and perfect the UniSol program in an effort to make a new, stronger breed of soldier that is more sophisticated, intelligent, and agile. All of the new Unisols, which are faster and stronger than their predecessors, are connected through an artificially intelligent computer system called SETH, a Self-Evolving Thought Helix. When SETH discovers that the Universal Soldier program is scheduled to be shut down because of budget cuts, he takes matters into his own "hands" to protect himself. Killing those who try to shut off his power, and unleashing his platoon of super-soldiers, led by the musclebound Romeo, SETH spares Deveraux, only because Deveraux has the secret code that is needed to deactivate a built-in program that will shut SETH down in a matter of hours. With the help of a hacker named Squid, SETH takes human form. Not only must Luc contend with ambitious reporter Erin, who won't leave his side, but Luc also must contend with General Radford, who wants to take extreme measures to stop SETH. SETH has also kidnapped Luc's injured 13-year-old daughter Hillary, and is now holding her hostage. Luc is the only person who can rescue Hillary, because Luc knows firsthand how a UniSol thinks, feels, and fights. now there are problems like in any movie like did anyone find it weird how a reporter just-so-happened to be there and The soldiers can take being flattened with a truck however when Vanne Damme shoots them with a gun with one bullet and they die and the final fight scene was unbelievable when Luc is now human and Seth is 5x stronger and faster than any other Unisol and Luc can take a hit from him. with the final fight when Luc smashes him to pieces I was really surprised that the pieces didn't melt and reform him (Terminator 2). another thing that bugs me is how the hell does Vanne Damme get good actors to play relatives I mean in the case of Vanne Damme it's completely off the grid of how Science Fiction this movie is. The Music Score now that must have a mention have you ever listened to a song where you'd rather cut a blackboard with a knife well Universal Soldier 2 is like that. The good points are there's no Dolph (HOORAY) and unlike the 1st one there is only one naked scene whereas in the 1st one there are many (I'm still haunted by the scenes in #1) also the actors in this have some talent whereas in the first one the casting guys were sadists (if you don't believe me look it up)@@@0 +Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by "the Pulse," it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.@@@1 +OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.@@@0 +A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing.@@@1 +The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.

Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.

Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.

The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.

I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.@@@0 +What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental.@@@1 +Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?@@@0 +It's cheesy, it's creepy, it's gross, but that's what makes it so much fun. It's got over the top melodramatic moments that are just plain laughable. This movie is great to make fun of. Rent it for a good laugh.

The film centers around three women newscasters, during a time way before cellphones. They go to a small town to cover a festival, but they can't get a room to stay the night. And that's when they meet Ernest Keller. He's creepy in a Psycho kind of way. And he offers to let them stay at his home. But he doesn't tell them the truth about who lives there.

Stephen Furst's performance is so amazing as "The Unseen", that he really carries this film. Most of the movie is kind of dull, although finding out the truth of Ernest's family is kind of interesting.

Just seeing this cast in these scenes makes it worth a look. Barbara Bach and Doug Barr make nice eye candy.

I consider the movie an old gem, hard to find and worth a look.@@@1 +Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.

It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road

Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie

PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter@@@0 +This is a long lost horror gem starring Sydney Lassick ("Carrie" and others) and Barbara Bach. It is sometimes difficult to locate a copy of this film but it's worth it. This film is creepy yet cheesy at the same time. It seems that 3 young newswomen (Karen, Vicky, and Jennifer) travel to the small city of Solvang, California to cover a festival when a mix-up occurs involving their hotel room and they seek refuge at the home of Earnest Keller (Lassick) and his strange wife Virginia. Vickie stays behind, feeling ill, as the other 2 are off to film their story. She is soon murdered at the house, in a VERY cheesy way by some unknown force hiding in the ventilation system (she is decapitated by the closing cover of the vent as it comes crashing down on her while she is being tugged through and into the basement). Soon Karen returns and she is murdered in an even more brutal fashion by having her face rammed through the vent cover. Jennifer is fighting with her (ex?)lover in a rather boring sub plot and when she returns home, her hosts (whom by now we have discovered are brother and sister and that whatever it is that is in the basement is their son) devise a plot to try to murder her as well. Virgina does not totally agree with Earnest's plan to murder Jennifer but she is tricked into going into the basement where she meets Junior. Here the film turns almost comic as Junior (portrayed hysterically by Stephen Furst) is a deformed, mentally deficient, manchild whose actions and motions will cause a few chuckles even though it's supposed to be scary. This is where the pace of the film picks up and the ending is well done. The actors/actresses do a terrific job with the material especially Lassick, Furst, and Bach and although it's not the most horrifying film ever made it is highly entertaining!@@@1 +The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!

To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.@@@0 +Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles.@@@1 +This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.@@@0 +The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10.@@@1 +Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.@@@0 +It's true that Danny Steinmann's "The Unseen" is a simplistic horror thriller with a very predictable plot, no particular attempts for twists or surprises whatsoever and featuring literally every single cliché the genre has brought forward over the decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. On the contrary, my friends and I were pleasantly surprised by this obscure but nevertheless intense little 80's shock- feature that mainly benefices from a handful of brutal images and a downright brilliant casting. The beautiful and ambitious reporter Jennifer Fast and two of her equally attractive friends travel to a little Californian town to shoot a documentary on the anniversary festival, but their hotel forgot to register their booking. In their search for a place to stay, the trio runs into the exaggeratedly friendly but suspicious museum curator Ernest Keller who invites the girls to stay at his remote countryside mansion. One by one the girls experience that Keller and his extremely introvert and submissive sister Victoria hide a dark and murderous secret inside their house. "The Unseen" can easily be described as a cheap and ultimately perverse amalgamation of the horror classics "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The plot is a series of familiar themes that became notorious and endlessly imitated due to these two films, like twisted family secrets in the cellar, voyeurism, crazed inbred killers and a very unappetizing treatment of chickens. Still, I don't consider these to be negative remarks, as "The Unseen" is a completely unpretentious and modestly unsettling thriller that clearly never intended to be the greatest horror classic of the decade. Although the denouement of the plot is pretty clear quite fast, director Steinmann attempts to maintain the mystery by keeping the evil present in the house "unseen" like the title promised. The casting choices and acting performances are truly what lift this sleeper above the level of mediocre. Sydney Lassick, immortalized since his role as the overly anxious psychiatric patient Charley Cheswick in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is truly the ideal choice for the role of Ernest Keller. His persistent friendliness and almost naturally perverted appearance are exactly what the character needed. Also Stephen Furst, who eventually turns from the unseen into the seen, gives away a tremendous performance as "Junior". He looks and acts like an authentic handicapped man and his attempts to get close to Jennifer in the basement are genuinely unnerving. "The Unseen" is a slow and predictable but nevertheless potent early 80's film that will certainly appeal to fans of 70's exploitation and generally weird stuff.@@@1 +Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.@@@0 +Gorgeous Barbara Bach plays Jennifer Fast, a television reporter who travels with her crew (Karen Lamm and Lois Young) to Solvang, California, to cover a Danish festival. The problem is that their accommodations have fallen through and all hotels in town are full. So they travel out of town to a remote location and take advantage of the hospitality of the seemingly friendly Ernest Keller (a phenomenal Sydney Lassick). Wouldn't you know it, Ernest and meek partner Virginia (Lelia Goldoni) are hiding a big secret in their cellar: pitiable, deformed, diaper-clad "Junior" (Stephen Furst, in a remarkable performance) who ultimately terrorizes the girls.

A deliciously unhinged Lassick plays the true monster in this disturbing little horror movie. It builds slowly but surely to an intense confrontation / climax, delivering the horror in small doses until the final half hour. The hotel and the foreboding cellar - large echoes of "Psycho" here - are great settings. Most of all, the perverse plot involves incest and patricide, allowing the movie to take on a truly dark quality. And yet it also becomes poignant as we realize Junior is no one-dimensionally evil bogeyman but as much a victim as the girls. The final shot is especially sad.

"The Unseen" is a solid little horror flick worthy of discovery.

8/10@@@1 +Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.@@@0 +Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by … "The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway … Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it – where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which … under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor … The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille … attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.

I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection.@@@1 +The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.

The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.

The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.

The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.@@@0 +Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of "The Spy Who Loved Me" fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in "Animal House"), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out.@@@1 +...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!@@@0 +all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched@@@1 +In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.

@@@0 +Upon the first viewing, I found this tale to be at least less annoying than other Cannon Movie Tales. After many more, I think it's one of the best. Some of the songs are pretty bad, especially the love song, but two things stand out that make the movie, even the singing, worthwhile. One is the art direction. Like the other Cannon Movie Tales, this is a beautifully decorated period piece; every piece of cloth and jewel (both of which have major parts in this movie's plot) look fresh and new, and contrast with the plain clothes of the peasants. Even during the love song I find myself studying the dress and hair of the princess, wonderfully done. The other thing is the comic timing. A lot of the movie is cheesy, but the emperor's vanity (and his making fun of himself in the end), the suspicious guard, the guard chasing Nicholas, and the stupid prince, were all quite funny and seem to be ridiculous quite on purpose. And the sequence during the song Weave-O makes up for the songs that weren't so good.@@@1 +In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.@@@0 +Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!@@@1 +I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.

Very improbable orphanage on Bala.

Cushing and Lee at their height.

Some nice scenery.

Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".

Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.

Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.

Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.@@@0 +"Hatred of a Minute" is a hauntingly beautiful film. A psychological thriller that takes you on a journey through the nightmare that is the life of a serial killer, Eric Seaver. Strong performances and excellent cinematography make this film a "must see" for any film student or horror fan. The realness of the story and the human side of Eric separate this film from other psycho killer movies. Some shout outs to the film's producer, Bruce Campbell as well as to the film "The Evil Dead" add some humor for anyone that knows the genre.@@@1 +I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.@@@0 +Michael Kallio gives a strong and convincing performance as Eric Seaver, a troubled young man who was horribly mistreated as a little boy by his monstrous, abusive, alcoholic stepfather Barry (a genuinely frightening portrayal by Gunnar Hansen). Eric has a compassionate fiancé (sweetly played by the lovely Tracee Newberry) and a job transcribing autopsy reports at a local morgue. Haunted by his bleak past, egged on by the bald, beaming Jack the demon (a truly creepy Michael Robert Brandon), and sent over the edge by the recent death of his mother, Eric goes off the deep end and embarks on a brutal killing spree. Capably directed by Kallio (who also wrote the tight, astute script), with uniformly fine acting by a sound no-name cast (Jeff Steiger is especially good as Eric's wannabe helpful guardian angel Michael), rather rough, but overall polished cinematography by George Lieber, believable true-to-life characters, jolting outbursts of raw, shocking and unflinchingly ferocious violence, a moody, spooky score by Dan Kolton, an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, grungy Detroit, Michigan locations, a grimly serious tone, and a taut, gripping narrative that stays on a steady track throughout, this extremely potent and gritty psychological horror thriller makes for often absorbing and disturbing viewing. A real sleeper.@@@1 +"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married?

Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.@@@0 +I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.@@@1 +In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).@@@0 +"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

"Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

"Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.@@@1 +I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".@@@0 +This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.@@@1 +this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.

seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened@@@0 +So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.

If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.

Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.

My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.

The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.

Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.

All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.

Check this one out.@@@1 +I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.

I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community.

Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.@@@0 +despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.

It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now

honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development

i was glad i watched it@@@1 +This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.@@@0 +Michigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, "Hatred of a Minute" has all the draw of mainstream hits like "Silence of the Lambs" and of cult classics like "Army of Darkness." The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out "Hatred of a Minute."@@@1 +The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.

That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.

I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity.@@@0 +I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.@@@1 +Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.@@@0 +I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words "Clueless and appalling nonsense." I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.@@@1 +When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.

And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.

But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.@@@0 +This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.@@@1 +The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.

This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.

I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.

Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."

First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims.@@@0 +This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.

THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.

I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!

@@@1 +There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?@@@0 +This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned.@@@1 +I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video.@@@0 +In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.

Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!@@@1 +Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.

Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.

Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.

As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.@@@0 +I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.@@@1 +There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.@@@0 +This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.

I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.

The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.

I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.@@@1 +I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.

To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.

S@@@0 +Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.@@@1 +I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.@@@0 +When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you.@@@1 +Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.@@@0 +Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.

The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.

Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen.

As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.

Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **@@@1 +Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

0 out of 4.@@@0 +This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.@@@1 +The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...@@@0 +This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 +From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.

William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.@@@0 +this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.@@@1 +Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.

Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.@@@0 +I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

@@@1 +Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...

etc etc etc....

Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.

As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.@@@0 +There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.

Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.

Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.@@@1 +Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!@@@0 +The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.

Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.

The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.@@@1 +Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.

'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.

I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked.@@@0 +Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.

In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.

It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.

The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!@@@1 +I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.

Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.

Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10@@@0 +This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.

Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.

By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.

These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.@@@1 +Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.

*1/2 (of four)@@@0 +I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.@@@1 +The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.@@@0 +What can I say that hasn't been said about "The Haunting"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.@@@1 +The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.

First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.

Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.

Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.

The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.

And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run.@@@0 +What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.@@@1 +Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).

Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.

Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.

When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.

Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie!

While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.

Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier...@@@0 +i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow!@@@1 +be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.

The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.

Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.

This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.@@@0 +I rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!@@@1 +This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it@@@0 +Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.@@@1 +Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.@@@0 +I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.

The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)

The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.@@@1 +You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.

As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination.

Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.

Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!

@@@0 +I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.@@@1 +One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.@@@0 +The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.@@@1 +Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.@@@0 +It seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.

John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.@@@1 +This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.@@@0 +What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?@@@1 +What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie.@@@0 +Jeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.

Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.

It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).@@@1 +I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better.

The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.

THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without.

To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.@@@0 +The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui@@@1 +On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.

I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.

Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:

1. Harris Jeyaraj

2. Harris Jeyaraj

3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it.

4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.

5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.

6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.

7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.

8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.

9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!

10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.@@@0 +"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!@@@1 +Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").

Thx@@@0 +Dark Angel is a futuristic sci-fi series, set in post-apocalyptic Seattle, centering on Max (Jessica Alba), a genetically enhanced young woman, on the run from her creators.

The Dark Angel universe is absorbing, (not as much as say Buffy, but absorbing nonetheless) with an interesting and believable set of characters. Certainly, it is not for everyone, but those who give it time will find themselves watching one of the most enjoyable series out there. Dark Angel is criminally overlooked, and under-rated, and was unfortunatly canceled after only 2 series. Which was a great shame, as this had the potential to become a great series, although its 42 episodes are only 10 shy of long running BBC sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. As it is Dark Angel remains unfinished, so seek it out, and if you want more, lobby Fox to make another series.@@@1 +Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.@@@0 +I found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award?@@@1 +I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..

come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.

technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.

kamal at his best is the best in tollywood@@@0 +Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.@@@1 +It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).

BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic).

*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley@@@0 +Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.

Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.

There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.

Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.

@@@1 +I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?@@@0 +Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??.

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!@@@1 +The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.@@@0 +Does anyone else cry tears of joy when they watch this film? I LOVE it! One of my Top 10 films of all time. It just makes me feel good. I watch the closing production number with all the cast members over and over and over!!! Bebe Benson (Michelle Johnston) is THE babe of the film, IMHO! I never saw the play but I get angry when I read reviews that say the play was better than the film. The two are like apples and oranges. The film making process will seldom deliver a finished product that is faithful to the original work. I believe it's only due to the fear of public alienation that many well known works adapted to the screen aren't changed more than they are. This is a very good film, it is very satisfying. That's all you need to know!@@@1 +A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".@@@0 +As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical@@@1 +About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.

This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!@@@0 +When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.

Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.

Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.

Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.

Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.

In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.

To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.

During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.@@@1 +I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.@@@0 +I watched this movie after seeing it on Broadway. I love the Broadway musical and I love the movie. I watched the movie like it was not related to the Broadway show. I am an avid reader and have seen what happens to most books when they are turned into movies, so I developed a philosophy really early. Assume that the movie is going to be based on the book ( or musical in this case) but that while the story line may be similar it will not be the same, it will be different so watch it for what it is.

I danced for 12 years before I had to make a choice. I was a good dancer( picking up chorus work in local productions as a child etc) but I wasn't super talented.I was however super talented as a show rider. I was told by my dance instructor and my trainer ( who i spent several months a year at his farm out of state) that I had to make a choice when I turned 14. That I needed to move up from dancing two hours four-five days a week and riding 3 hours a day 7 days a week.. and dedicate to one or the other. So I dearly love dancing and I love this movie and a lot of the other ballet and dance movies. I just chose to watch this movie for what it is, it is a great movie about raw emotion and human interaction. It is about the power of anticipation and heartbreak when you work really hard to get something you want and you just do not get it. I love the movie. I love the Broadway musical.@@@1 +Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!@@@0 +As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.@@@1 +This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.@@@0 +This movie will always be a Broadway and Movie classic, as long as there are still people who sing, dance, and act.@@@1 +An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.

The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.

And indeed, it does.@@@0 +This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...@@@1 +I saw "Paris Je T'Aime" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The "stories" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.

The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.

I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.

There were only two "successful" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.

The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.

The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, "Paris Je T'Aime" was an awful cinematic experience.@@@0 +This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.@@@1 +Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.

I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.

The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.

The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.@@@0 +I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...@@@1 +MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.@@@0 +Anyone who has seen this movie and reviewed it poorly, I would refer them to Roger Ebert's review of this movie. He is one of the most respected Critics in the industry, and he gave it 3 1/2 Stars.

This is a great movie. It may not be perfect, or spectacular, but I enjoyed it. A Chorus Line is not so much a story, as it is a group of stories about the lives of Broadway hopefuls. I read reviews where people said that too much time was wasted on the romance between Zach and Cassie. That is an incorrect view. It is another story along with all the other stories that are told about each of the Broadway hopefuls. What people fail to realize is that those who are dancers for Broadway shows go through the same things that the common man goes through. And that I think is really the point of the whole show. It is to showcase not only the talent of these special dancers, but to give us some poignant things to think about in regard to life in general. This is a study of life as a Broadway star. Anyone who has dreamed of becoming a Broadway star watches this movie with a great feeling of relationship because they have gone through exactly what the characters are going through.

This is a great musical. It has its slow points, and at times gets a little confused with the pacing of certain story lines, but all in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Take a closer look at the movie, and then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.@@@1 +It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.

This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.@@@0 +hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one@@@1 +This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.@@@0 +I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 +This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.@@@0 +I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly.@@@1 +You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_5.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_5.txt index afa6022..33408b7 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_5.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_5.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.@@@1 -Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.

This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.

The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me.@@@0 -The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.

Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.

Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.

The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.

The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.

With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined.@@@1 -Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.@@@0 -I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.

I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.

I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.

In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended.@@@1 -I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.

We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.

Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).

I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.

... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.@@@0 -First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life.@@@1 -As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.@@@0 -I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.

The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.

The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.

Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.

It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.

Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.

All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it@@@1 -Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.

The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life.@@@0 -This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.

As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.

Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as "Michael J Fox" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.

What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.

The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same.@@@1 -I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.

I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.@@@0 -Jon Voight is brilliant in Midnight Cowboy, but Hoffman's performance, though reminiscent of his later turn in Rainman, is the kind of performance that keeps me watching movies. As a portrayal of a New York character, only Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Bill Butcher in Gangs of New York comes to mind as comparable, and Day doesn't give his character the emotional depth that Hoffman gives Ratso.

It's typical of Hoffman's way of acting that the actor we tend to identify most with Midnight Cowboy is Voight. I think Hoffman is one of the 4 or 5 best actors in the history of film at playing off the people around him in such a way that he raises their performances far above their normal levels.

Voight's Buck is so naive that he would float out of the film altogether, except that Ratso pulls him down - pulls him down, but also teaches him, a lot about how to survive and, more importantly, how to live.

Midnight Cowboy is a movie about escape that turns into a movie about finding yourself. I think that, as gritty a movie as it is, it has a very beautiful message, that no matter how much a loser you might be (Ratso clearly defines "loser"), if you can find a way to be true to yourself, you are in possession of the secret of life, and you might even be able to share that insight with someone else.

I can't help but compare Midnight Cowboy to Klute, from a few years later, which I think is more like a movie about finding yourself that turns into a movie about escape.@@@1 -Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?

For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?…. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.

Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.

Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.

In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.@@@0 -I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.

The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.

I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason.@@@1 -First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.

Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.

I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.

4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.@@@0 -Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.@@@1 -A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."

Lame.

Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.

The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.

One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.

This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.@@@0 -Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......@@@1 -Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.@@@0 -Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.

'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.

The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.

Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.

While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.

Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.

'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.

*** ½ out of 4@@@1 -This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee.@@@0 -What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.

This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.

If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.@@@1 -What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.

One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.@@@0 -"Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.

The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10)@@@1 -This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.

Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.

Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!@@@0 -Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone.@@@1 -All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.

This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.

0 out of 10!@@@0 -Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.@@@1 -Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.@@@0 -Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.

A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the "end of innocence" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.

JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend "Ratzo" dreams of living in.

But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting "Midnight Cowboy" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.

Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life.@@@1 -There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.@@@0 -Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, "The King of Comedy". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as "Dallas Doll" (1994) or "Dinner Rush" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

"Without You I'm Nothing" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", for instance, would look a lot different if "Without You I'm Nothing" didn't exist.@@@1 -Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!

This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!

One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!@@@0 -John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.

Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.

Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'

Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.

'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.@@@1 -I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.@@@0 -"Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).

The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.

Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).

It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all.@@@1 -Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!@@@0 -Just kidding.

Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.

While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.

Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.

8.5/10@@@1 -This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)

The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...

I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.

It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.

See it and laugh!@@@0 -Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.

What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene.

The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.@@@1 -Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."

First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!

So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.

And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...

Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.@@@0 -Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.

He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.

Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.

The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.

It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman.@@@1 -This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.

Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.

The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.

You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick.@@@0 -After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.@@@1 -Where to start ?! . . . I feel ... violated! Thats right, violated! I just spent 1.5hrs of my life, 1.5hrs that I could have spent doing something more useful, like watching paint dry, on this so called horror flick.

Its not scary, its not funny, its not dramatic, its no action, its nothing...

Its predictable, its boring, its tragic...

I might come of a bit harsh here, but watch this movie and you will feel the same way ... or ... no, don't watch it...unless you want to feel violated also.@@@0 -Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****@@@1 -Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.@@@0 -It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".

The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.

In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.

The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger".@@@1 -I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.

And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.

The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".

So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)@@@0 -'Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.

The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason.@@@1 -This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.

The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).

The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past.

Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.@@@0 -Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.@@@1 -Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...

Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.

I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...

Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...

But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.

Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.

3/10@@@0 -At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things.

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!)

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.@@@1 -In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!@@@0 -I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)

So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.

The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.

Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.

Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)

4.5/5@@@1 -I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.@@@0 -The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).

I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.

This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.

The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.

I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.

I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.

I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.

On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.

Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.

Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences.@@@1 -DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...

Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.

Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?

Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.

DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...@@@0 -Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since.

Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences.

It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools.

10/10@@@1 -Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)

NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10@@@0 -Virile, but naive, big Joe Buck leaves his home in Big Spring, Texas, and hustles off to the Big Apple in search of women and big bucks. In NYC, JB meets up with frustration, and with "Ratso" Rizzo, a scruffy but cordial con artist. Somehow, this mismatched pair manage to survive each other which in turn helps both of them cope with a gritty, sometimes brutal, urban America, en route to a poignant ending.

Both funny and depressing, our "Midnight Cowboy" rides head-on into the vortex of cyclonic cultural change, and thus confirms to 1969 viewers that they, themselves, have been swept away from the 1950's age of innocence, and dropped, Dorothy and Toto like, into the 1960's Age of Aquarius.

The film's direction is masterful; the casting is perfect; the acting is top notch; the script is crisp and cogent; the cinematography is engaging; and the music enhances all of the above. Deservedly, it won the best picture Oscar of 1969, and I would vote it as one of the best films of that cyclonic decade.@@@1 -Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?@@@0 -In my opinion, this is one of the greatest movies ever made in America and it deserved every single award it won and it's place on the AFI Top 100 list (though it's shamefully too low on the IMDB Top 250 list, at only #183 as of this writing). If you enjoy acting of the highest calibre (Voight and Hoffman are a superb match), well-drawn characterizations and inventive direction, editing and cinematography, you'll love this just as much as I did. Schlesinger paints a vivid, always credible picture of the late 60s New York City scene and it's many victims struggling to overcome personal demons and survive amidst the amorality, poverty and hopelessness of 42nd Street, New York City.

The filmmaking techniques employed here brilliantly capture the feel of the underground New York film movement (and of the city) and are nothing less than dazzling. I've seen many ideas (including the rapid-fire editing, the handling of the voice-over flashbacks, the drug/trip sequences and the cartoonish face slipped in during a murder scene to convey angst and terror) stolen by other filmmakers.

The relationship between Joe and Ratso is handled in such a way as to be viewed as an unusually strong friendship OR having it's homosexual underpinnings. I think the director handled this in a subtle way not to cop out to the censorship of the times, but rather to concentrate his energies on the importance of a strong human connection in life, whether it be sexual or not.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a brave, moving film of magnitude, influence and importance that has lost absolutely none of it's impact over the years, so if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on a true American classic. I recommend this film to everyone.

Score: 10 out of 10.@@@1 -This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)

The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.

Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?

Overall boring and laughable horror.@@@0 -Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.@@@1 -The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely.@@@0 -I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.@@@1 -Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...

Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10

www.ResidentHazard.com@@@0 -Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.

John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy.

Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go.

The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.

Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.

Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.

The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones.

7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.@@@1 -Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.

No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.

The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.

For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.

It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please.@@@0 -Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of ****@@@1 -What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!@@@0 -This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !)

You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.

There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.

Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition.@@@1 -I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.@@@0 -This is one of those unfortunate films that suffered an even more sad, unfortunate death at the box office. I saw this film at a local art cinema,in revival form,shortly after it tanked in mainstream cinemas. It certainly deserves to be approached a second time (or even a third). Sandra B. takes it to the limit by doing spoken word & taking on some well known songs in this piece (her version of Hank William's 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' could easily move you to tears). Maybe someday, audiences will be ready to take this film a bit more seriously (but not without some well placed laughs,too). The film moves at a brisk pace (thanks to some nice editing),so that some viewers will not find it stale & boring. Perhaps a revival is just down the pipeline.@@@1 -We saw this on the shelf at the local video store, saw "Coppola" in the credits and got excited. That was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. I could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably, or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. In general, the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. The sound in particular was absolutely dreadful, especially in the scenes shot in the little bar; the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. Very disappointing.@@@0 -This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindström are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.

"Vuxna människor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldn´t be better off without it.@@@1 -This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.@@@0 -This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!

All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!

Highly recommended.@@@1 -"Nacho Libre" (2006)

Directed By: Jared Hess

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog)

Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.

Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor…of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.

The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.

"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just…well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.

Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)@@@0 -High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see.@@@1 -Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.@@@0 -I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\

All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.

I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.

Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.@@@1 -We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.@@@0 -In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.@@@1 -What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?@@@0 -Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.

Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.

Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival.@@@1 -I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.

Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...

What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!

Just skip this piece of garbage

P.S. (sorry for my English)@@@0 -George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer.

In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)

As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.@@@1 -I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....@@@0 -A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.

Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.

Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for.@@@1 -Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...

Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.

I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"

But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.@@@0 -Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.@@@1 -- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -

I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered.

I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny.

It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.

I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.@@@0 -when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie@@@1 -Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.

She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.

More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.@@@0 -Did Sandra (yes, she must have) know we would still be here for her some nine years later?

See it if you haven't, again if you have; see her live while you can.@@@1 -This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.

All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.

The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.

What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.

Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.

If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.

What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.@@@0 -There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better!

I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better!@@@1 -There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.

Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.

Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles....@@@0 -Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).@@@1 -Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.

O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.

The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!

This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.@@@0 -Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!@@@1 -2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.@@@0 -Ah, clichés, clichés, clichés; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller.@@@1 -If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.@@@0 -Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.

Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.

Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.@@@1 -Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better.

This movie was a total disaster.@@@0 -So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)@@@1 -Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?@@@0 -Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I´d probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you´re nine you just don´t care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I´m kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year´s eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It´s like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can´t see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don´t mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast´s balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don´t mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff.@@@1 -Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.@@@0 -*****Spoilers herein*****

What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?

Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.

I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.

The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.

I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children.@@@1 -In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.

All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.

The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.

Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.@@@0 -MINOR SPOILER

Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10.@@@1 -Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.

The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?

Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.@@@0 -"Pet Sematary" succeeds on two major situations. First, it's a scary Horror movie. Those that just aren't produced in these days. Second, it's an emotional, clever movie overall. So if you are looking for chills, scares, creepiness and visually stunning settings, great acting, dialongs, and gruesome effects; this is the movie you are looking for. A classic now and truly a must see for any Horror fan.

Probably, the best adaptation to any of King's novels. The events feel a little rushed compared with the novel, but that doesn't means that this underrated movie isn't a complete Horror/Drama accomplishment.

Stephen King's novel is widely known for being very emotional and gruesome at the same time. The movie captures the same feeling mainly because there's a great character development and you can feel the loving relationship between it's members. Then, when everything seems to be happiness (technically happy, because the title "Pet Sematary" does not offers appiness!) a tragic event changes the movie's atmosphere, now it turns very dark. The movie has a sinister feeling since the opening credits, but after Gage is killed the movie becomes sad, gray, creepy. Dealing with the loss of a baby son is something that can ruin a family's entire life, and "Pet Sematary" proves it dramatically.

The legend behind the pet sematary is more than a myth that no one wants to experience, but sadness and desperation lead an emotionally destroyed father to give it a shot. Sadly enough, the legend comes true and baby Gage returns from the dead. The previous encounter with the pet sematary legend turned out to be a tragedy but this time it's something much, much worse. What will happened with the lives of our All American family? Could Pascow prevent this tragedy? What is it with the surreal nightmares?

Watch "Pet Sematary" to witness one of the most touching, emotional Horror movies of recent times. You won't regret. The acting is very good although I didn't dig the actor who portrayed the father. He didn't seem disturbed enough when the situations asked for his desperation. But that's just my opinion. Denise Crosby truly delivered a great performance and worked perfect as the noble, tender mother. Baby Gage was amazing even on his creepy parts. *Shivers*. Overall this is a great classic of all time and a disturbing movie that touches people's deepest fears... the loss of someone you love, the dead returning to life, and a feeling of desperation.

Something is for sure... I don't wanna be buried, in a pet sematary!!@@@1 -Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.

The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).

Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.

Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.@@@0 -If you ever have the chance to see Sandra Bernhard live in person, you better move on it sweetie. I saw her last year in Los Angeles at the opening of her Everything Bad and Beautiful tour and i still can't believe that i was in the first row, and lucky enough to experience such a phenomenal show. She is now in New York with the show and it coincides with the release of her groundbreaking stunner, "Without You I'm Nothing". We have lost Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Nina Simone, but Sandra is still with us. Patti Smith is missing in action, but not Sandra. Barbara Streisand continues to peep her head out once in awhile but Sandra more than makes up for where Babs leaves off. Okay, i want it known, Ms. Bernhard is a little of these influential entertainers and more. I really wanted to push this film because of its truth, honesty, humor, eclectic songs (ranging from Laura Nyro, Sylvester, Nina Simone, Prince), and a script that defines the decadence, joy, sadness, ups and downs of the 70's and 80's. It is my opinion that many (and i mean, MANY) comics have lifted, okay outright stolen, so much from this show if not from Sandra herself. I won't name names but come on, people, you and i know who they are. See, the thing is, Bernhard plays by her own rules. This movie shows, as does her live performances, that she is a performer who has stayed true to the old school of show business, as well as pushing forward. Her performances are reminiscent of smoky jazz clubs (during the time of Miles Davis,Coltrane,Monk), 70's TV shows, intimate cabaret acts and concerts that are reminiscent of everyone from Judy Garland to Joan Jett. Most comedians couldn't even touch where Sandra is coming from or going to. So, here i was, a year ago, watching Sandra at the Silent Movie Theater, in total awe and joy. I wanted to meet her after the show, give her something that meant something to me, that, hopefully would mean something to her. But i listen to my copy of Giving Til it Hurts, and just thank her in a prayer, of sorts for making me laugh, making me think, making me FEEL. You can't deny this lady's presence and you certainly cannot deny the talent that just rushes from the stage. She's still here, damn it, even after the release of Without You I'm Nothing, some 15 years ago. And she looks great, by the way. I know this firsthand, walking from the theater one audience member said to another, "She is SO FUNNY..and she still looks incredible!!! If you can't experience her live yet, please see this movie. As for me, I do hope that Sandra will see this. You've meant a heck of a lot to me, gotten me through some tough crazy times. If you can send me an email, please do. If not, knowing that you are still kicking it out and will continue to do so, is enough for me. Come on, people, give it up for the Lady!!!!@@@1 -I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.@@@0 -Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.@@@1 -The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.

This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.@@@0 -This is one of the creepiest, scariest and most heartbreaking horror movie EVER!

Dr Creed (Louise) and his family moving in to new home with his wife (Rachel), Daughter (Ellie) and little son (Gage) Everything seems normal until Dr Creed loses one his patient who had a terrible head injury,Then he is haunted by the ghost know as Victor takes him to the Pet Sematarty and show him that where the dead come to life.

Louis not knowing if that was all dream and is talking to Ellie who worried about her cat that could be killed by lorry and then later on Rachel tells Louis that it really hard for to talk about death because of her sister Zelda who was really sick (As we see in a flashback how sick her sister really was and this is one of the most creepiest scene ever!)

The next day Louis gets a call from Jed saying there cat as been killed by lorry and Jed take him to place where Victor the Ghost told him not to go! And bury the Cat, His wife and kids have go to see their Grandparents and Louise is home alone shocked to see the cat is back and now it as evil in it eyes so he goes to see Jed then Jed tell him that he also buried his dog there too (As we seen other flashback).

Later on in the movie The Family out having Picnic, Gage is playing with kite and Gage say's I drop it", The wind blow the rod near the road where a lorry coming at fast past, Gage is get closer to road, Louis is rushing to get him, The most HEARTBREAKING scene in any horror movie will leave with your Jaw on floor or Shivers will go down your back when you hear Louis screams, Soon he missing him so much, Louis then buries Gage in same place where is buried the Cat.

The scariest thing about this movie is that some scenes in this movie are not too far from really life.

This movie is just Amazing and the acting from everyone was great! 10 out 10@@@1 -The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.

If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").

Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.

But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.

Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!@@@0 -I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.

I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.

The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.

@@@1 -Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.@@@0 -"Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.@@@1 -"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.

Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.

The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.

This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.@@@0 -Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.@@@1 -This is a truly terrible film.

I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.

Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.

I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?

Please, please, please do not watch this film!@@@0 -As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.@@@1 -Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.@@@0 -In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.@@@1 -I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.

I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.

0 out of **** stars.@@@0 -Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.

Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.

When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.

Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.

This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from "The Exorcist." The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.

The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.

9/10@@@1 -The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.

Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]

Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.

I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.

Avoid

* / **** (one star out of four)

@@@0 -I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.@@@1 -This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)

I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.

This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.@@@0 -Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out.@@@1 -Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!@@@0 -Well, this might be one of the funniest movies of all time, and Sandy gives a tour-de-force performance! Alas, her career never quite took off, but - at last - she will always be remembered for her three first-rate pictures: "The King Of Comedy", "Dallas Doll", and "Without You I'm Nothing". She dons into different personas from New York socialite to Diana Ross to create a biting and hilarious critique of popular culture in America. Sexy and fierce, tender and sensual, philosophical and melancholic, she convinces the audience in every scene, and she actually IS "really pretty". Watch this one (if you're not from Iowa), you'll certainly enjoy it!!@@@1 -I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.@@@0 -One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...

My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.@@@1 -First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.

FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!@@@0 -This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!@@@1 -The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...

Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...

Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.

I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.

The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.@@@0 -I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!@@@1 -I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.

All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.@@@0 -I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.@@@1 -OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.

The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.

I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.

About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.@@@0 -Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis."@@@1 -The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.

First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.

For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!@@@0 -The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token.

Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.

At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?

The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 -This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.

Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.

As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.

1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.@@@0 -'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.@@@1 -My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.@@@0 -Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesques—at Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cutting—all very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?@@@1 -What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."

You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.

And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.

Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.

If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.@@@0 -Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.@@@1 -I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.

"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.

Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.

In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.

Avoid this steaming pile.@@@0 -I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.@@@1 -The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.@@@0 -Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else.@@@1 -Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)

[potential spoiler alert]

Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc.@@@0 -Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect.@@@1 -My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.@@@0 -This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.@@@1 -The good fellas at Webster's Dictionary define Logophobia as the ‘fear of words'. I may just be Logophobic. For no word combination scares me more than when at the beginning of a film, credits contain the words `Produced, Written and Directed by:', and are followed by a single individual's name. Think about it. There are carpenters, electricians and plumbers, but so few jack-of-all-trades. Even the most seasoned of directors like Speilberg and Scorsese rarely take such control of their films. But there I was, all nestled in my theatre seat, popcorn in hand and about to watch The Order when hurled at me like a Nolan Ryan fastball, were the words `Produced, Written and Directed by Brian Helgeland'. Whoa!

Being a film buff, I knew of Brian Helgeland. As a writer his filmograpghy over the past 10 years would be graphed like a dotcom company's stock price in 1998. There were as many theatrical unpleasantries (Assassins, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory) as there were critical and award winning successes (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River). They seemed to alternate – one good, one bad, so knowing that his last film, BloodWork was one of the most wasted efforts in Clint Eastwood's career, I took a breath and hoped for the best. In retrospect, I should not have exhaled.

The Order stars Heath Ledger (Helgeland's A Knights Tale), as Alex Bernier, a priest in an order known as the Carolingians, who is summoned to Rome when a fellow priest is killed under circumstances that the Arch Bishop deems ‘curious'. Meeting up with Father Thomas (also of the Order and played wonderfully by Still Standings' Mark Addy), they set out to piece together the riddle left behind in the wake of the priest's untimely death.

Complicating matters is a sub plot involving Mara Sinclair (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who has escaped from an institution that was the result of her attempts to kill Alex during an exorcism. Alex has feelings towards Mara and for some reason unbeknownst to the audience, they travel to Rome together.

Nary a good nights sleep goes by and Alex is confronted by William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who claims to be a centuries old Sin Eater. A Sin Eater, as we are told, are those that eat the sins of a dying individual when the church does not, thus allowing entrance into Heaven. William, as luck would have it, is tired of a life of healing and looks for Alex to take over his role and free him from his worldly duties. Alex is reluctant, but after the death of his new love Mara, Alex resorts to the ritual of the Sin Eater to save her and the transformation is complete. Alex then searches for answers to his many queries while Father Thomas unveils the Vatican plot behind the passing of authority to his fellow investigator.

The Order is not a terrible film, but it is terribly boring. There were ridiculous special effects and no connection with any of the characters. Even in the most dramatic scene - that of Alex walking in on the dying Mara - is pale and bland and leaves us with no emotional response towards the couple's plight. Everybody seems to talk so quietly and unemotionally that the film flat lines and smelling salts could have been administered to keep me from trying to grab a quick nap in the middle of the film.

So, Mr. Helgeland, I plead with you not to try this again. Share your vision with others and allow those more experienced to help direct you in directions that are not so narrow minded and self-serving. Until then, there is nothing emanating that shows you are capable of anything more than a failing grade. Two stars.

@@@0 -Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.@@@1 -Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.@@@0 -At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!@@@1 -In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.@@@0 -The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.@@@1 -The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.

They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.

Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.@@@0 -The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.@@@1 -::POTENTIAL SPOILERS::

Man, this movie was awful. A Catholic/superstitious/suspense thriller it goes over already well tread ground from previous movies.

The doubting priest. Sex and the priesthood. Politics and religion. Church hypocrisy. Conspiracy involving the church. The dawn of a new evil age. All kinds of dark magic voodoo battles between good and evil.

Pretty stupid and lame with a weak storyline to suffice. The story revolves around two concepts: Absolution, better known as the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick - the last rights a person can ask for to cleanse one's sins while on the brink of death; And Excommunication, the act of cutting a person off from the Church. Basically, an Excommunicated person can't receive Absolution. Thus comes in the Sin Eater, and I'll leave it at that. Throw in all the dopy things I already listed and you have "The Order".

I found the sex scene with the priest interlaced with shots of a picture of the Virgin Mary rather insulting to Catholics. It also ends with Heath Ledger saying (I paraphrase) "I am the redeemer and damner of sins, I live on without love blah blah blah" /cue him walking in dark alley with long trench coat alla "The Matrix".

I gave this movie a 1 for not only being crappy and unoriginal but also because it managed to insult an entire faith in the process. If you want to see something better I suggest "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.@@@0 -This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.@@@1 -Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.@@@0 -I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie.@@@1 -No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.

I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.

Not so Royal Flash.

I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).

What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).

None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.

Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.

If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.

A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.

My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.

If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.@@@0 -This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended.@@@1 -As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.@@@0 -Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.@@@1 -Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.@@@0 -Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.

Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.

While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.

This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.

A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions.@@@1 -This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.

Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.

This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.@@@0 -Not to be confused with the British black comedy of the same name that came out in 1994. But this Shallow Grave is a worthy addition to the 80's backwoods slasher.

The plot goes = 4 sorority girls from a convent are planning the spring break of a lifetime in Florida, but they're plans are put on hold when one of them witness a man murdering a local woman, and when he realizes that he was seen, well let's just say it becomes a deadly game of cat and mouse and things get even worse when he turns out to be the local sheriff.

Shallow Grave in my opinion is one of the more enjoyable slashers that came out in the 80's, especially the late 80's which was when the slashers kinda went downhill, this was one of the few that didn't and this movie should be more well known, it's a pity it isn't. this is one film that actually confounds stereotypes (just try guessing who the final girl is going to be - I got it totally wrong). The principle cast are all likable and it's one of those movies that you kinda hope they all get away, which of course they don't. This, coupled with the fluffiness of the film's first half-an-hour jars (in a good way) with some flashes of real nastiness (the second murder provides a real jolt) and some unexpected sleaziness (even though this isn't a high budget thriller I didn't expect the topless scene where a woman is strangled with her own bra (accompanied by a hysterical religious radio broadcast), in a film from this late in the 80's).

There are one or two bad things about this movie, well not bad just minor, like the sub plot with the two teenage boys which doesn't go anywhere and the ending which was stupid and plus the Deputy inability to follow logic. There aren't any sharp implements in SHALLOW GRAVE but, to my mind at least, it's a slasher flick through and through. The scenes where the girls are hunted through the woods by the malevolent Sheriff are tense and exciting.

All in all a very enjoyable and worthwhile slasher, with great performances from all four of the main girls and that psycho sheriff.@@@1 -I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.

The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be "THE 4TH MAN." The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.

The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.

Not that I have anything against "shocking" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.

So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.@@@0 -Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.@@@1 -I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.

This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.@@@0 -I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.@@@1 -There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.@@@0 -This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8@@@1 -The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.

SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.

With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.@@@0 -This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 -OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.

Good things about the movie: imagery

Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors@@@0 -This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.

I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.

A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.@@@1 -I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.@@@0 -I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.@@@1 -Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.@@@0 -The story is extremely unique.It's about these 2 pilots saving Earth from alien beings but they have to use a special speed that makes everything around them age rapidly.The whole series is about the pilots dealing with the loss of time,friends,and mentors.

The ending COULD have been fantastic.It started to end on a total down note and leave a real mark but instead ended on a super happy Disney note and annoyed me VERY bad.

The animation is decent for 89 but can't compare to nowadays.I have also heard many complain about the cheesiness of the nudity.I actually found it to be somewhat decent.The nudity for the most part was warranted except in episode 2 where there was an excess.

Overall it deserves a look but the ending keeps it from being a classic.@@@1 -Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.

This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.@@@0 -Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time.@@@1 -So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending.@@@0 -This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.@@@1 -This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.@@@0 -/* slight spoilers */

Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.

Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.

For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.

The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.

The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray

some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.

The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.

As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.

Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.

***/*****@@@1 -This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.@@@0 -Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over.@@@1 -Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas.@@@0 -Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.

Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.

Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.

All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you.@@@1 -For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.@@@0 -terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion@@@1 -Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.@@@0 -Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name.@@@1 -Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.@@@0 -Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.

There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.

And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that.@@@1 -I watched the movie, and was dismayed to say the least that the movie failed to communicate with me as an audience. The language would put to shame the street loafers.

The plot; a father forcing none of his son to marry, seems far-fetched.

The idea of a grandmother asking her grand kid to mess up with an enemy would only draw feeble minded's attention.

...and I was waiting the whole movie for a laugh, and laugh I did on my stupidity to waste 3 hours to convince myself that the movie is not even worth a first look.

Hope it saves YOUR time!@@@0 -Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.@@@1 -...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.

Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely "Hey, kids, let's make a movie!" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.

It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.

Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to "The Notorious Bettie Page." This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.

Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.@@@0 -What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.@@@1 -This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.

Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.@@@0 -Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest… some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles… some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise… some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.

Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word… but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics… it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them.@@@1 -I'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a "loving" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual "content" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or "point" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...

The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of "re-enactments" of some of Bettie's more "famous" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the "business" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...

DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...4/10@@@0 -Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch.@@@1 -This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its "world premiere." I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end.

Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say "wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie." this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory.

I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes "Dude, Where's My Car?" look like Citizen Kane.

My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the "world premiere" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.@@@0 -This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.

I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.

If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.@@@1 -The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.@@@0 -With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.

Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9.@@@1 -They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.@@@0 -Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10.@@@1 -The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.@@@0 -Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!@@@1 -In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.@@@0 -I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it@@@1 -I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.

Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.@@@0 -Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen.

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly.

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better.

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock!

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.@@@1 -IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!@@@0 -I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.

Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.@@@1 -As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.

It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.

This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.@@@0 -This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.

Make it so...@@@1 -This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.

This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.@@@0 -Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out!

I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!

Good work to all concerned!

(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)

It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?

Really glad I found it!

(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)

The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.

Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!

I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza

"Never give up, never surender!"

Viva les frontieres@@@1 -One of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.

First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like "The Good Earth", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. "Gold or Grain" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.@@@0 -For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.

Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.

This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.

By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.

I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.

The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.

If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.

If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.@@@1 -As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.

The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock?

Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.@@@0 -Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.@@@1 -I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.@@@0 -Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.@@@1 -By reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 10@@@0 -Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.@@@1 -Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.@@@0 -I really enjoyed this one, and although the ending made me angry, I still give it 10 out of 10.

Four college girls (Baltron, Kelly, Stahl and Cadby) are driving down to Florida, on their way they meet 2 guys (Turner, Davis), they really add nothing to the plot, but are at least somewhat likable. The girls agree to meet the guys in Florida for some fun, but they have car problems and never make it. One of the girls decides to go to a nearby gas station for help, the other three stay by the car.

Soon one of the girls has to use the bathroom, being in the middle of nowhere she has no choice but to go in the bushes. Soon she witnesses as a man (March) strangles a woman, in terror the girl flees the area, she doesn't get very far, but manages to get lost.

Her friends by the car go looking for her, they too go into the woods and run into the same man, one of them sees the dead woman, the man responds by shooting the girls head off, the other girl runs away, manages to make it back to the car where she is also killed.

Eventually the two remaining girls find each other and because they break into the gas station get arrested. This is when I started getting mad, these poor girls are afraid for their lives and the redneck cops don't believe them.

They are treated badly and one of them is left alone for the madman to kill her in the cell, the remaining friend manages to escape, but not without getting in dangerous situations.

This movie has nudity, good actresses, a shower scene imitating Psycho, graphic violence towards women and solid story. Some women will probably find it offensive and sensitive individuals will NOT like the ending, but over all, this is a great little unknown movie.@@@1 -I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision.@@@0 -Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though.@@@1 -Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though.@@@0 -I acquired this, one of my all-time favourite films on DVD recently and as usual, during viewing, the whole thing just blew me away.

I am a massive fan of Hazel O'Connor and the soundtrack to this film just has me in tears, especially the "Will You" track. It's a pure nostalgia trip for me back to my youth. This rates second best to Quadrophenia (which also starred Phil Daniels).

A great soundtrack and a great view of Britain in the Thatcherite years of the grim 80's in which I grew up. The ending is so sad, for hours after the end of the film I am like a blubbering baby.

I expect to wear out this DVD from repeated viewing, I can watch it over and over again and never be bored, simply for the soundtrack alone.

Hazel, sorry to hear about your dad darling. God Bless you all. xx@@@1 -If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.

After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.

Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.

Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.

Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.

Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.

I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.@@@0 -Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well.@@@1 -I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys@@@0 -I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry!@@@1 -In short, this movie is completely worthless.

The idea is to make movie from the point of view of what someone from the early 1900s might think of the future. An interesting idea, but the lack of compelling story or characters prevents us from ever suspending our disbelief, so the idea just flops.

Apparently the whole movie was done with actors in front of green screens and we are supposed to be impressed. But as a graphics person, the over softening was an obvious crutch for hiding the difficult sharp edge problem with green screening. The color is majorly washed out to no relevant effect except reduce the visual quality. And I don't understand why anyone would consider anything rendered in this movie to be in any way ground breaking. If anything, the ridiculous retrograde graphics have lowered the bar for really bad graphics -- they don't measure up even to the ancient Jurassic Park graphics. The models for the robots were so simple, plain and very uncompelling. There were a bunch of weirdo prehistoric-like animals on that island, but they are not explained in any way.

The story is horrible beyond belief. In fact I can't believe I didn't just walk out of this movie. The relationship between Polly and Joe is unmotivated, and throughout the movie is based on distrust and deception. Why is the Morris Paley character even there? We are not in any way convinced that Joe is heroic -- I mean he flies a plane, and saved one person (Polly) for personal reasons. Yeah there's a great hero for you. Dex has very little screen time, so why are we supposed to care about Joe wanting to save him? Who were the Nepalease that locked Joe and Polly in the mine vault, and why would they do it (remembering that the entire Totenkopf operation was robotic)?

Plot holes: (1) Why did Bai Ling's character (a major fall from her excellent character in "The Crow") halt the robots who had captured Joe? They were looking for the vials, and had not found them. (2) Why in the hell would Dex be captured but not killed (he doesn't have or know about the vials, and the bad guys didn't know that Polly had the vials and was connected to Joe and therefore to Dex)? (3) Polly indicates that "they" don't know anything about Totenkopf, yet she has some secret source about him that contains what appears to be a fairly complete FBI-style file on him. (4) The blank spot on the map as described by the Nepalese -- if they know all about this mysterious area, then why the hell is their map blank in that spot? (5) At one point, Polly and Joe have to give up their clothes (they are burned) -- Joe is given new clothes that were identical to his old clothes, yet Polly is forced to wear some very odd looking bulky dress, then in the same line of continuity suddenly Polly has her original clothes back.

*sigh*. How far off am I supposed to switch my brain to watch this crap?

We are supposed to be exhilarated by the over produced music, even when nothing interesting or remotely exhilarating is happening on screen.

And the acting? We're supposed to be impressed with a bunch of bad British accents? Which character isn't annoying? I think Ling Bai's dialogue was probably the best in the whole movie (she doesn't have a single line). The dialogue wasn't camp, and doesn't even rise to the level of cheese. Its just bad and annoying. These people aren't hero's or compelling; they are the kind of people you would try to ignore or disassociate with if you ever had the misfortune of meeting them in real life.

I can't believe that this movie gets an above average rating here on IMDb. IMHO it should be competing with "Batman Forever" in the bottom 100 of all time.@@@0 -One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy@@@1 -When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.

The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.

The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10@@@0 -I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.@@@1 -I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.@@@0 -Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!@@@1 -The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.@@@0 -I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

@@@1 -This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.@@@0 -Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter.@@@1 -A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.

The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.

But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.

The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.@@@0 -I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.

The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.

Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though.@@@1 -Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.@@@0 -I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?@@@1 -The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.@@@0 -Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money!@@@1 -I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film.@@@0 -As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.@@@1 -Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.

'Should have' being the key term here, of course.

Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.

Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.

The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.

Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.@@@0 -This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.@@@1 -"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.

One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.

I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.

The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't.

As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.

I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.@@@0 -This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.

If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.

There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.

I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.@@@1 -Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.@@@0 -It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time.

Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.

The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.

Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.

Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.

The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English.

The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.

Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date.

Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.@@@1 -"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.@@@0 -This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.@@@1 -In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.

The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.

The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.

Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.@@@0 -Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.@@@1 -What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!@@@0 -Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.@@@1 -This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.

The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...

Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...

THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...@@@0 -Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!@@@1 -I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.

The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.@@@0 -Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.@@@1 -I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.@@@0 -Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema.@@@1 -I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.@@@0 -Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!!@@@1 -This movie should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?

This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.

it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!

ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!

@@@0 -This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!@@@1 -To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.

The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...

*My rate: 4/10@@@0 -THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.

This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...

THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10@@@1 -Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.@@@0 -This is an excellent show! I had a US history teacher in high school that was much like this. There are many "facts" in history that are not quite true and Mr Wuhl points them out very well, in a way that is unforgettable.

Mr Wuhl is teaching a class of film students but history students and even the general public will appreciate the witty way that he uncovers some very well known fallacies in the history of the world and strive to impress them upon that brains of his students. Use of live actors performing "skits" is also very entertaining.

I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in having the history they learned as a child turned upside down.@@@1 -For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.@@@0 -this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following@@@1 -I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".

Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.

The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.

I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.

They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.

A real mess of a film from start to finish.@@@0 -I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.@@@1 -There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.

The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.

Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.

There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.

My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.

Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.@@@0 -I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.@@@1 -Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...@@@0 -Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.@@@1 -Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."

The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"

Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."

The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"

Please.@@@0 -Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.@@@1 -I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.@@@0 -Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.@@@1 -Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.

I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.@@@0 -My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.@@@1 -I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.@@@0 -Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.@@@1 -I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.

And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.

Avoid this film like the plague.@@@0 -Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.@@@1 -We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script@@@0 -108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.

John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.

DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.

KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risqué jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.

Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934).@@@1 -...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.

@@@0 -A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.

Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.

Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't dead—only wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).

The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.

Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing props—dodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swings—but these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.@@@1 -How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!@@@0 -One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).

Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.

Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.

I really like this film a great deal.

If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.

You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures.@@@1 -Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...

First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!

I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!

Are you getting the picture?@@@0 -I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.@@@1 -This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.@@@0 -Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.

I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:

Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.

Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.

Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful.

Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous.

Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.

Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)

Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!

Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.

So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code.

The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.

Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex.@@@1 -I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.

I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.

I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film.@@@0 -Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!@@@1 -There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!@@@0 -The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.@@@1 -this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....@@@0 -In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.@@@1 -Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!@@@0 -I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.

One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.

The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.

Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.

The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.

What direction! What camera! What storytelling!@@@1 -Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.@@@0 -A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout)@@@1 -This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!@@@0 -This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.@@@1 -I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski.

As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.

Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....

Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........@@@0 -This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.@@@1 -In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade – Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes – but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.

When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd.@@@0 -"Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.@@@1 -I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.@@@0 -When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate!@@@1 -I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.

I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.

The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.@@@0 -Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their "boys." People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.@@@1 -I read James Hawes book. It was pretty neat, not great, but entertaining enough. Without having read the book I wouldn't have had the slightest idea what was going on, and it was still a stretch with that knowledge.

Literally every element of this film is abysmal in ways I do not have the capacity to describe. Half digested fish could have made a better film with matchsticks and dayglo lipstick.

Never before or since as a film made me feel so angry. The Mattress sequels came closest, but even they never reached such depths of utterly putrid nauseating appallingness that this bilge did.

Since wasting 90 minutes of my life witnessing this plague on human kind I am now unable to even look at any book by James Hawes without feeling angry. That is the depth of hatred I have for this piece of sh*t. No, that's unfair. Let me apologise to all fecal matter for comparing you to the otherworldly evil that is Rancid Aluminium.

Plain and simply a cancer on the world of cinema.@@@0 -I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.

After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.

One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.

The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.

It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie.@@@1 -Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.

@@@0 -As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic.@@@1 -This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated

To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained

Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely@@@0 -Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.

Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.

Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.

There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.

Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.@@@1 -In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10@@@0 -There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended.@@@1 -Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.

Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.@@@0 -Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.

JLH@@@1 -This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.

In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and "art" film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.

If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.@@@0 -The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!

The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.

MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!

The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).

Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?

While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.

TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!@@@1 -By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.@@@0 -Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings.

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.@@@1 -Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it.

To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...

Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.@@@0 -I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com@@@1 -Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.

The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.

After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.

At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.

Made on a budget of 75 cents.@@@0 -William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.@@@1 -This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.

As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.

Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.

But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians.

So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.@@@0 -This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do.@@@1 -OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.@@@0 -This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.@@@1 -I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.

Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.

Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given:

If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.

Approach wild animals without any fear.

You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.

and my favorite, the final message left in the film:

It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.@@@0 -I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.

Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun.

In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka@@@1 -This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl – Helen Selleck – is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.@@@0 -This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.

The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.

Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.

The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).

So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.@@@1 -Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.

***MAJOR SPOILER***

The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.

The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.@@@0 -The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.

Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.

Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.

This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.@@@1 -This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.@@@0 -Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...

Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic.@@@1 -The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.

While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".

It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.@@@0 -With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.

The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.

No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.

Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.

The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.

The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.

This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.

The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.

Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.

Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film.@@@1 -I've seen this film because I had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). I couldn't stop thinking "who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to Cannes Festival!" It wasn't only boring, the actors were awful as well. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.@@@0 -EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.

A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating).@@@1 -This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity@@@0 -Ossessione

Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable.@@@1 -1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiancé and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....@@@0 -Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.

The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.

In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.

There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.

All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.@@@1 -Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!@@@0 -Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.

The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.

Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.

Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.

8/10@@@1 -Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.

This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.@@@0 -Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.@@@1 -A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.

Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.

How much longer can this madness continue?@@@0 -I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.@@@1 -William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).

Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide...

**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage@@@0 -When people nowadays hear of a 1940s drama, they usually appear to create a distance of irony claiming that it's another tearjerker with great stars in the lead of tragic, melancholic roles. This opinion, however, does not resemble Neorealist movies, in particular this one directed by Count Luchino Visconti. OSSESSIONE as his debut once censored and once cherished as nearly a realistic masterpiece is still loved by some people and strongly criticized by others. The contradictory opinions about the film that have appeared in these 65 years seem to have been caused by the content of the movie itself, exceptionally controversial for modern times as well as the past. At the same time, while being based on the novel by James M. Cain, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, it is one of the most genuine screen adaptations where director remains his own style, view, his own art. I have seen the film twice and the second viewing led me to very detailed analysis part of which I'd like to entail below.

First, Visconti's movie seems to touch all psychology and actions that people may do in life, in particular those absorbed by desire. These people make such tragic decisions in spite of terrible consequences they are bound to face. Gino (Massimo Girotti) a traveler with "bear like shoulders" turns up at the crossroad of a motorway near Ferrara and enters the tavern. Although many people go there to have a meal, Gino occurs to get something more - much more: the indefatigable desire of beautiful Giovanna (Clara Calamai) a woman already married to an elderly man who runs the bar, Mr Giuseppe Bragana (Juan De Landa). Her body and her song possess his mind totally and from the moment of their first love, the couple plan to get rid of the old obstacle and build up a new life together... However, are people bound to wrong deeds in face of desire? Can one build love upon murder? What is love and what is loyalty? Does desire lead to a dangerous addiction or even obsession? Such questions intensely arise while watching the movie, when, to the core, the viewer is supplied with an insight into characters. "We have to love each other affectionately" answers Giovanna seemingly giving a cure to all crying conscience but may desirous love justify and cure everything? "Isn't it what we both wanted" says one of the couple... it occurs that it's not. Therefore, the content of the film appears to be very dangerous if not analyzed with intellect and heart. Yet, it constantly remains thought provoking.

Second, OSSESSIONE has a very strong point that talks to modern viewers: brilliant moments and marvelous cinematography, which go in pair with memorable sequences and visual power. These make a modern viewer realize that a film made almost 70 years ago is absolutely entertaining to watch. They range from tasteful erotic images to purely technical shots. Who can possibly skip that moment in Ferrara where Gino meets a beautiful girl, a sort of "Ragazza Perfetta" (perfect girl), a dancer Anita and buys her ice cream. His desires show him totally different direction... Do viewers remain indifferent at Gino-Giovanna's first meeting? The first focus of camera is on Giovanna's legs seemingly representing carnal desire over love that Gino experiences. A marvel of shot is Gino and Giovanna leaving the investigation room and the closeup of their shadows that directs our attention towards their suspicious look.

Third, OSSESSIONE can boast outstanding performances both from the leading pair as well as the supporting cast. Massimo Girotti once said in an interview that working in this movie had been one of the most difficult jobs he had ever done; yet, consequently, what comes out is a flawless acting. He portrays a bisexual man torn within desires who commits a crime but cannot stand any of the objects that remind him of his victim, which represents conscience. His bisexuality is indicated through the character of Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo) whom he meets in very surprising circumstances in the train for Ancona. Clara Calamai, who was cast in the role after eminent Anna Magnani had refused, fits very well to the role and we may claim that there is a true chemistry between the couple. They are both very convincing. Besides, I liked Juan De Langa in the role of Bragana: he portrays an old husband not affectionate to his wife and still crazy about high art. In some of his most witty moments, he asks his wife to wash his back or walks in the empty streets singing his favorite opera songs after sort of karaoke performance.

In sum, we, as modern viewers who are capable of critical view, have to look at this film very objectively. It is art for sure thanks to the aspects aforementioned, it is a powerful story as well thanks to the controversy it carries; yet, is it educational? Visconti was not Fellini who said that he did not carry any message for humanity. In such case, his films would only entertain (which is, of course, not entirely Fellini's style, too). Visconti always had something to convey. What did he want to say here? Is the film against bad marriage? Or is it against wrong actions of people absorbed by desire? The final shocking moments say for themselves. Though you don't have to agree with the vision, OSSESSIONE is really a wonderfully realistic film, one of Visconti's best 8/10@@@1 -This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.@@@0 -A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.

@@@1 -Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).

Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).@@@0 -To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.@@@1 -The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene.@@@0 -TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!@@@1 -

Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).@@@0 -A masterful treatment of James Caine's "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French "Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended.@@@1 -Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.@@@0 -'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.

P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!!@@@1 -Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.

Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.

If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 -Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).

Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes.

It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.@@@1 -First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.@@@0 -fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again.@@@1 -I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!@@@0 -Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come.@@@1 -This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.@@@0 -Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.@@@1 -and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).

maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.

the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!

rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .

I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.

points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!@@@0 -Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.

The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.

I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!@@@1 -This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!

The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.

In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.

I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".

I rated this movie 1/10.@@@0 -Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.

The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.

What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.

Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.

The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.

"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.@@@1 -Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.@@@0 -(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.@@@1 -Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:

In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.

The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.

There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.@@@0 -Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.@@@1 -This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point.@@@0 -This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.@@@1 -Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...@@@0 -Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.

It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help.

"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.

All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko".

While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.

"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.@@@1 -Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 -This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh.@@@1 -A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.@@@0 -Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific@@@1 -someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.

please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.@@@0 -When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.

But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.

I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased.@@@1 -You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.

The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.

Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.

Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.

Just bad.@@@0 -This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.

Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.

Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON!@@@1 -There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.

It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.

It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.

If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.

It's still drivel, though.@@@0 -Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).

Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.

The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words".

You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.

The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.@@@1 -This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.@@@0 -I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.

I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.

I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)

I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.

Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it)@@@1 -I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.@@@0 -When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.@@@1 -In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgs—robots with human features—that have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.

Only one force can stop Jōb's death march—the Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.

In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.

Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).@@@0 -I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.

I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!

If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.@@@1 -This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)@@@0 -this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!

@@@1 -Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.@@@0 -This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.@@@1 -Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.@@@0 -The combination of the superb black and white photography and the 'Eugene Onegin with a twist' plot made this a real knock out for me. The atmosphere created by the mostly very dark shots contrasted with occasional very bright overexposed white was gripping. There was a superb moment where where transparencies - apparently conventional holiday snaps but where the faces of the actors revealed character and situation subtly but instantly - were shown accompanied by Lensky's heart-wrenching aria from the Tschaikowsky opera Eugene Onegin.

For me the mark of a good film is that it should take advantage of the opportunities presented by that medium, which means that often the story is less important than imagery and atmosphere - Last Year in Marienbad is a good example of such a film. Krisana is in the same mould.@@@1 -Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.@@@0 -Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!!@@@1 -The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.

The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.@@@0 -This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.

Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.

The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.

Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending.@@@1 -"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."@@@0 -I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.

"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.

Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.

The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.

"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.@@@1 -With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.@@@0 -A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.@@@1 -As big as a Texas prairie and equally as boring. Even Liz Taylor, James Dean, Chill Wills, and Dennis Hopper can't float this overbloated boat. Taylor actually LOOKS bad--wrong wardrobe, wrong hair, and wrong makeup--a unique accomplishment in her remarkable career. Hopper gives the only believable performance, and Dean in the climactic scene displays remarkable talent as something we usually don't remember him for--a comic actor. Rock Hudson is his usual prototype of Barbie Doll Ken and makes one wonder what a, say, Redford could have done with the male lead. There is no discernible plot that provides any tension until the final twenty minutes, just a pastiche of milestones that have little relationship to each other. Except for Hopper, there is no character development, only a collection of cardboard cutouts that pop up periodically for no discernible reason like random targets in a shooting gallery. To its credit, the film does tackle racism and sexism at a time when they were taboo subjects, and it does have SIZE, making it an excellent choice for ridding yourself of unwelcome house guests. Those with the DVD version can spare themselves some of the tedium by starting with the second disk. You won't be missing anything of interest.@@@0 -Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.@@@1 -This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography@@@0 -I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful!@@@1 -Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).

This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.

Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!

This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).@@@0 -Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.@@@1 -I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.@@@0 -Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.

The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichéd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.

Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.

The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts.@@@1 -An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.

Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.

The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.

Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.

I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.

The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.@@@0 -I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!@@@1 -I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what … but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.

For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.

Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.

There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.

Grade: ** out of *****@@@0 -I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you.

It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.

And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.

If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.@@@1 -Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.

Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.

As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.

Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.

Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.@@@0 -Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.

Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.@@@1 -There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 -This is a delightful movie that is so over-the-top that my wife, daughter, and I found it irresistible. The plot is just crazy but "rings true" to the world of soap operas in all its outrageous improbabilities and impossibilities.

I particularly enjoyed Kevin Kline's and Sally Field's performances. I don't anyone better than Kline at playing THICKheaded. Field's character's truly desperate need for attention and affirmation -- and her almost bipolar swings in mood -- played nicely against the background of Field's famous (infamous?) "You like me!" Oscar exclamation. People who can take themselves with such a large grain of salt are all too rare in this world.

I think this is the only movie where I didn't find myself impatient with Whoopi Goldberg characterization; I thought she was "spot on" in every note she struck. Robert Downey Jr., Teri Hatcher, Cathy Moriarty, and Elizabeth Shue were also first-rate as well. Just a great movie if you're in the mood to go along for the ride and LAUGH!@@@1 -I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.@@@0 -Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco – of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly.

A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant – a zombie in his closet.

Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him – and his family – he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.

Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan – who wrote and directed – blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality – it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).

The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless.

Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.

However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal.@@@1 -This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.@@@0 -This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA.@@@1 -In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski:

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children."

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.@@@0 -I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.

This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.

I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.@@@1 -I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.

I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.

What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.@@@0 -I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!@@@1 -1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.@@@0 -Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.

Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.

I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm@@@1 -I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox@@@0 -This is why I still have nightmares.

This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.

A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).

The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.

Not suitable for children.@@@1 -I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?@@@0 -I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.@@@1 -Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.@@@0 -i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year......@@@1 -Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.

It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.

For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.

The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).

Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.

These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.

The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.

It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"

Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.

It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.

Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.

These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.

Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.@@@0 -I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path.@@@1 -Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.

One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.

Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.

Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.

Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.

By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.

I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.

Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.

I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.

Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.@@@0 -This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.@@@1 -Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.@@@0 -The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.

It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.

It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.

You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.

If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.@@@1 -As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.

I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money.

Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community.

This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible.

It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.

The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.

I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.@@@0 +This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.

Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.

Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.

I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.

There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.

A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out@@@1 +Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.

Sorry to be so critical.@@@0 +This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.

Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.

His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.

The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.

Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.

The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.@@@1 +I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.

Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.@@@0 +One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.

The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements.@@@1 +This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.@@@0 +Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.

Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).

The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.

This programme is available on network DVD@@@1 +I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.

** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly.

If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:

First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.@@@0 +Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.

The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.

It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.

The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.

The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.

In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned.@@@1 +Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things.

The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.

Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.@@@0 +As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.@@@1 +SPOILERS AHEAD

This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, "Flashlight!" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, "oh yeah!" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.

I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.@@@0 +While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television.@@@1 +How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.@@@0 +Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: "Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.

It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times.

In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...

On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past.

A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.

Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.

For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.

Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.

The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.

After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'.@@@1 +So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.@@@0 +This is a better than average silent movie and it's still well worth seeing if you are a fan of the silents. However, if you aren't yet a fan of the genre, I suggest you try a few other films before watching this one. That's because the plot just seems pretty old fashioned and difficult to believe in spots. But, despite this, it's still a good film and kept my interest.

A nice lady unfortunately hooked up with the wrong man and ran away to marry him. The film starts five years later after she has come to realize that he is really a brutal thief. Despite this, she tries to make the best of it and not dwell on how good life had been before this jerk came into her life. However, the rent is due and there's no money, so the lady is forced to look for work. She becomes a personal seamstress for a rich lady whose husband is trying to swing a business deal. Unfortunately, the lady who they were trying to hook up a potential client with for a dinner party can't make it and the seamstress is paid handsomely to be the man's date. Well, like Cinderella, she cleans up pretty well and the man is infatuated with her! What to do now--given that she is actually married and the new fella wants to marry her?! Well, see the movie yourself to see how it's all resolved. I DIDN'T like how they handled the husband, as it seemed awfully predictable and clichéd. However, once he was out of the way, I do admire how the film also DIDN'T give up a by-the-numbers finale and left the film with a few loose ends.

All in all, a very good film worth seeing, but certainly not great.@@@1 +Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them.

In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage.

Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.

Is that the spoiler?

It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...

So what's the spoiler?

Lemme think...

No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested.

I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!@@@0 +In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.

This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.

The ending is wonderful.@@@1 +This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!@@@0 +This film has a clear storyline, which is quite unusual to the musical genre. "Cats", "Phantom of the Opera", and other Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals can be considered metaphorical, as they use literary works as their framework. "Biarkan Bintang Menari" (BBM)'s storyline touches the very core of human relationships, especially that of Indonesian people. Despite the fact the film was based on a "supposedly" fairytale, it's actually a fantasy of the 'child' in Indonesian adults. The dance sequences are not perfect, yet the songs represent how Indonesians express themselves. I reckon the choreographer should explore Indonesian way of dancing, by not dismaying the fact that Indonesia's dance development tends to be more westernized. The dance sequences seem awkward in some ways and not synchronized with the songs and/or music. Yet, I still love this movie and regard it as a new wave of Indonesian film genre which I hope to improve in the future.@@@1 +Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.@@@0 +And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie.

All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.

While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer.

It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.@@@1 +Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?@@@0 +I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10.@@@1 +End Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.

The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.@@@0 +I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.

Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.

Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...

(9/10)@@@1 +I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?@@@0 +As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)@@@1 +Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.

4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.@@@0 +I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.

The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.

So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!@@@1 +My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.

I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.

Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).

What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).

One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.

Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.

If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.@@@0 +Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through.@@@1 +i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.

angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.

and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.

poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.@@@0 +I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.@@@1 +I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.@@@0 +Good, funny, straightforward story, excellent Nicole Kidman (I almost always like the movies she's in). This was a good "vehicle" for someone adept at comedy and drama since there are elements of both. A romantic comedy wrapped around two crime stories, great closing lines. Chaplin, very good here, was also good in another good, but unpopular romantic comedy ("Truth about Cats & Dogs"). Maybe they're too implausible. Ebert didn't even post a review for this. The great "screwball" comedies obviously were totally implausible ("Bringing up Baby", etc.). If you've seen one implausible comedy, you've seen them all? Or maybe people are ready to move on from the 1930s. Weird. Birthday Girl is a movie I've enjoyed several times. Nicole Kidman may be the "killer app" for home video.@@@1 +Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.

Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.

Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.

Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.

The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.

Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.

Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.

Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.@@@0 +This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5@@@1 +Maybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.@@@0 +I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.

I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.

http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm

It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.

My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

WuMaster

- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com@@@1 +I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!@@@0 +Nicole Kidman is a wonderful actress and here she's great. I really liked Ben Chaplin in The Thin Red Line and he is very good here too. This is not Great Cinema but I was most entertained. Given most films these days this is High Praise indeed.@@@1 +...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?@@@0 +Every time I see Nicole I like her more. I love a movie like this. A woman you just won't give up on, but she keeps breaking your heart. First movie I remember seeing like this was Of Human Bondage, the Kim Novak - Laurence Harvey version. The beefs about the correctness of the Russian spoken in this film are petty, it was good enough to fool me or anybody else who can't speak Russian, I'm sure. Funny how people miss the point. The no-goodnik Russian guys were well cast too. Finally, I have to tip my hat to Ben Chaplin, as somebody else noted, he plays a sap with great dignity, and there was definitely some heat between him and Nicole. To think, guys get PAID for that, mind-blowing.@@@1 +On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.

However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.

There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.@@@0 +Modern, original, romantic story.

Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.

Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me.

Conclusion : good movie.

Les Pays-Bas : huit points.@@@1 +First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.@@@0 +A small funny film. It is totally incredible, unbelievable, impossible. But it is funny how an introverted masochist can become totally dependent and mesmerized, even hypnotized by a girl he hardly knows but who was able to get down into his phantasms. Of course it is a denunciation of the foolish deals you can get to on the Internet. You must not believe ten percent of what you're told there and never, ever, ever accept to tie up your hands in a way or another to someone or something or some organization you do not know personally. Most of their "businesses" there are in a way or another going to fool you and raid you. But here the chap deserves being the victim of such gangsters because he is not only naive, he is absurdly silly. But then the film becomes funny because it ends up with the victim of the crooked business having the upper hand and ending up playing the same game with his victimizer and winning. One think is sure too. Security in English airports is not exactly what it should be, but I guess it's not better anywhere else in the world and even now they have tightened up all rules and regulations it is just fun to go through their procedures and foil them systematically. Then they have their vengeance by losing your luggage, a real plague on modern airports, and don't expect to get fair compensation. Or even confiscating a bottle opener or a can opener because it may be dangerous. I can see myself cutting my way through the side of the plane with a can opener. Funny, isn't it? Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 +The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.

Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.@@@0 +When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's.

Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable.

Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.

Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.

I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing.

I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime.@@@1 +Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.

It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.

I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.

The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.

Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling".

During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.

The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.

And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.

@@@0 +I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.@@@1 +I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.@@@0 +The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!@@@1 +1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.@@@0 +This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.@@@1 +The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).@@@0 +The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.

Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).

Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.

See it with an open mind!@@@1 +Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****@@@0 +From what critics and audiences indicated, BIRTHDAY GIRL had to be a big fat clinker. Still, because I love Nicole Kidman, I decided to rent it last night. It proved to be quite worthy of watching. Sure, it isn't your basic American comedy, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it is a very British movie, but that's why I liked it. It was a change from all the other movies around, a breath of fresh air. Sure, there were some plot holes, but overall it worked. First off, Kidman was fabulous again in a very different, not very glamorous, but still quite sexy role. She just keeps proving that she is one of the top talents in Hollywood. Not only is her Russian accent when she speaks English effective, but there are times when she carries on long conversations in Russian and if you didn't know it was Nicole Kidman, you would never question her authenticity. Harrison Ford should have taken note in "K-19." Overall a slight little movie that works despite the horrible buzz.@@@1 +Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.

Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.

The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.

OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.

This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.@@@0 +This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series"Heartbeat" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character.@@@1 +but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.@@@0 +Are you a giraffe?... ask John to Nadia, and she, sure of responding well, responds him: yes. In this way begin the communication between a man and a woman who don't know each other, and at the same time, the questions and doubts in "Birthday Girl". A film that i heard a lot of times, but i don't dare to see... until two hours of write this.

"Birthday Girl" is a passionate movie that makes me fall in count, at the same time, that Nicole Kidman is one of the best actress (Besides she is pretty and intelligent) that i have ever seen. "Birthday Girl" is the story of a lonely and routine man who looks for a wife at internet. The woman that he finds comes from Russia. She seems to be that delicate woman, normal, not more. One day, in her birthday comes suddenly, his cousin and his friend. The man, begin to discover certain things. Since here, he don't going to be the lonely and routine man that always have been.

Much of us going to think that this movie is just a regular one with a exploited plot. Much of us going to think that the action and thrills are sure and don't novel. But "Birthday Girl" is just the opposite. This movie is full of good surprises, good performances and a imaginative plot that i had never seen and imagined. This romantic thriller with certain funny touch is an excellent natural film with a lot of proposes for the films of it kind. "Birthday Girl" have certain beauty and crudeness in its scenes, but at the same time, certain touching nature, and makes it so deeper.

"Birthday Girl" is sometimes sad, sometimes funny, sometimes violent, but at the end, is totally satisfactory. And I'm not sorry in say that this is a masterpiece.

*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.@@@1 +It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.@@@0 +The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.@@@1 +Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!

Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!

In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.

Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.

In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.

Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.

Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!!@@@0 +This is a good example a film that in spite of the low rating is more than worth watching. The story is engaging and it doesn't take long before the chemistry between Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin grabs your attention. The acting is first class and the characters are represented well. Sometimes it feels like the director couldn't decide himself between drama and romantic comedy. Ben Chiller's portrayal of the law abiding and shy Englishman with porn S.M. magazines hidden in the bedroom creates plenty of moments for laughs! As does the look in Nicole Kidman's eyes when she is offering John his first taste of intimacy in a long time... Other times the actors and especially Nicole Kidman give this comedy quite expertly a dramatic slant.@@@1 +Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.@@@0 +For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.

It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.

Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.@@@1 +Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.

Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!@@@0 +John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman – the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait")@@@1 +This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.

Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.

If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.

The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.

Too bad, I really wanted to like this.@@@0 +This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.

This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.

What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".

Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.

The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.

My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.

Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.@@@1 +I can't think of much to say about this film.

This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.

The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved.

The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage.

If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.@@@0 +Jessica Alba's Max and Valerie Rae Miller's Original Cindy shines in this actionpacked and atmospheric serial. Wonderfully politically incorrect. Quality varies greatly from episode to episode, but generally the standard is high and when it is not, Jessica is always worth looking at. Valerie's urban jivetalking afroamerican is occationally almost dragging Dark Angel into sitcom territory.@@@1 +I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.@@@0 +I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.

This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.

I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.

OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.

Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.

Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please!@@@1 +Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.

1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)@@@0 +I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.

This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.

A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!@@@1 +The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.

The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.

The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.@@@0 +This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.

The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)@@@1 +This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.@@@0 +An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.@@@1 +Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.@@@0 +The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.

Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.

Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery.

"My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.

Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.

Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.

He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?

In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.

Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced.@@@1 +For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.@@@0 +Teresa Pavlinek was a popular member of the Toronto Second City cast. She has done numerous guest spots and commercials up here in Canada. Finally someone has the sense to create a show for her. The supporting case seems quite good too. I have now watched the pilot several times and I still find it refreshing. Though, I am not sure why the show is listed as The Jane Show 2004. (I might be wrong) But as far as I am aware, the show was conceptualized in 2005 and appeared on Global TV in Canada in early 2006. It is a fresh idea and hopefully it does well. Too bad this couldn't be paired up with Corner Gas. Now I know Corner gas is on CTV, but the two shows would be great companion pieces.@@@1 +What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.@@@0 +I'm watching this on the Star World network overseas which buys American and Canadian series that last one or two seasons like The Jane Show. I thought of how many female lead comedy shows Im actually able to watch on my own, There's Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie (the one with Barbara Feldman), and then my mind goes kind of blank I cannot think of any others, the women are all supporting roles not the lead. So for me, The Jane Show is in pretty good company. One thing I just thought of though. I've watched several things made in Canada, and I never recall any thing being filmed in a regular TV series that shows SNOW! It's all made at the height of summer, LOL! Granted it's a great place to live climate wise in the summer but you would THINK, they would show a little bit of Canada in the winter since that's part of the lifestyle there also. I mean SCTV, Just For Laughs come to mind as two comedy shows that lasted a long time filmed in Canada and very little or none is shot with snow present even though they both do a lot of outdoor shots. I digress but I kind of chuckle at Jane and her obviously liberal ways being accused of racism to her neighbor, and I like the bald guy and his craziness, I found it on par with a UK series called The IT Crowd (I Think) another office comedy with a female lead. Not by any means the best comedy ever but for a guy to say he can watch it alone, thats saying something. If I was with my wife she might really enjoy it since it addresses sex in the office and stuff like that so might be a good light comedy for couples to watch. 7 of 10.@@@1 +Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.

As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.

Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.

It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)@@@0 +Excellent show. Instead of watching the same old sitcom type shows where it's the same old thing, just different "stars", this refreshing show provided an incredibly entertaining view of office situations. We have been away from watching any television for 2 years and after coming back, of all the shows available we look forward to watching this show on W. Shame on Global for pulling the plug on this one. I thought this one would be a winner. Let's be realistic about things, FEW Canadian SHOWS make it. Everyone I talk to enjoys this show and I believe it was foolish of Global to walk away. I guess they want to stick it out with the typical mind numbing shows from the States instead of pulling behind a Canadian made show that had a lot of promise. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a lot of shows on TV, but, come on people, let's keep the variety. This unique show provided a very comedic view of a slightly exaggerated realistic side of office life and relationships, with unique characters that you don't see on any sitcoms today or in the past. Too bad that global had to say no to this one, foolish mistake.@@@1 +I give this a generous four out of ten stars, or dots or markers, or something.

There were a grand total of two really really funny scenes in this movie. All the scenes with Amy P and Tina Fey and Greg Kinnear (Greg Kinnear!!) moved along agreeably enough.

Otherwise, the usual trafficking in stereotypes, blazing speed, rudely pushed along by a stupid soundtrack, and "soundtrack" is generous.

Anyway, the two really really funny scenes involved Amy P. She's just really hilarious in an animal kind of way. She's a mixture of that ape man skit that they do on SNL and Lucille Ball.

I hope they (Amy P and Tina Fey) just flat out admitted they did this for the money, because if by doing it, it gave birth to the Sarah Palin parodies, then I guess we can say, yeah, it was worth it to put the black guy back into the servant man role, who's really there to help you be more human.

Blah. 4 outta 10 like I said is generous.

But no more, girls, OK? Oh, I almost forgot. The mom from "Two and a Half Men" is in this movie, and she's had some kind of plastic surgery, so that her mouth now looks like the mouth of a 30 year old, so every scene she's in, I'm like trying to rearrange her face, or put it together in my mind, or just answer the question, "No. Wait. Wait. HAS she had plastic surgery?" Because as a viewer, you really don't want her to have had plastic surgery.@@@0 +Spacecamp is my favorite movie. It is a great story and also inspires others.

The acting was excellent and my wife and I went to see Lea Thompson in Cabaret years later due to her performance in the movie. It is unfortunate that the Challenger Accident delayed and hurt the movie.

The 20th Anniversary of the Challenger Accident is coming up. I knew one of the Challenger Astronauts off and on since childhood on the Carnegie Mellon campus where my father went to school; I also know a close friend of the late pilot.

I was the technical review last year for National BSA for the Boy Scout Astronomy Merit Badge and I still find Spacecamp a great movie to recommend to Scouts doing the Space related merit badges I teach.

I ran into the late astronaut again as an adult and was following a schedule of engineering education we had put together when Challenger blew up. I wound up sitting in with Willard Rockwell and his engineers,"invisible", going over things after the Accident at the Astrotech stockholders meeting by chance as a result, so I'm much closer to the Accident and any movie similarities. I made sure that I was a good student and finished the degree four years later, strangely enough, on the recommendation of the Rockwell engineer who told them not to fly Challenger in 1986 and who later built Endeavour.@@@1 +Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.

Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.

Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.

Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....

4/10@@@0 +Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also.@@@1 +I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.@@@0 +definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well.@@@1 +A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.

I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.

The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.

She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.

Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked … oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!

Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!

It's just too unlikely.@@@0 +Hurrah! A space film that doesn't take itself too seriously and everyone can come along for the exciting ride that is space camp. The film starts slowly, the usual mix of idiots and high-fliers mixed together into a dodgy soup. But when the going gets tough - the tough get themselves sorted out and it's not an un-believable change in the characters as you can believe that there's some responsibility in their young minds.

The only flaw in the film is that Kate Capshaw is EXTREMELY annoying as the "I'm right and you're all wrong" instructor. I would recommend this as a nice night in movie and a 7 Vote.@@@1 +I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off.@@@0 +This is one of the most guilty pleasure movies ever!

I am embarrassed to say that my favorite character is TISH, but still enjoy watching her make her space outfit "like super cool" with a "like totally bitchin" belt and stick on rhinestones on her face.

But anyways, the movie is actually one of the few "family" movies that holds your interest. I know that the begining drags, particuarly if you know what is going to happen, but the second half is probably one of the most nerve wracking segments in a family film.

I wouldn't stand up in front of millions of people and proclaim to love this movie, in fact renting it is pretty embarrassing itself, but I'll admit it here with the internet to hide behind.

@@@1 +An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.

A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.

This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia.@@@0 +Spacecamp is one of the movies that kids just love, and mom and dad can have fun watching as well. Growing up in the 80's I enjoyed this movie, it's plot and all the actors. I recently purchased this movie on DVD so when I have kids of my own, they will be able to have as much fun watching this movie as I did. The plot is fun, A group of kids, embark on a journey they never expected, when they were rocketed into space by a overachieving robot. They were in auh at first but when they realized they didn't have enough oxygen to make it back panic sunk in. Once they recovered enough oxygen from the space station they returned to earth as even better friends and a new found respect for life.@@@1 +**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.

Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.

Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.

At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.

The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.

We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.

With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.@@@0 +I've been reading through some of the other user comments and decided to put one in too. Some of the users are stuck in a 'realist' type of mentality. This film was meant to be a 'fantasy'....a 'what if' fun film. It was never meant to be 'real' or serious. It was thoroughly enjoyable for everyone I knew when it came out - even though it shadowed the tragedy of the Challenger explosion...I was 30 at the time and totally enjoyed this one - my young son loved it too! Later, I shared it with my daughter and she, too, loved it. SpaceCamp is a fun family film that should be enjoyed for just that - fun. All the 'realists' in the world should lighten up or stick to watching documentaries or docudramas and avoid any other type of film. So sorry for those young folks who watched this movie first and then were able to go to the real SpaceCamp (one in Alabama and one at Vandenberg AFB in California) - they must have gone expecting to find the same type of environment that was portrayed in the movie and then felt 'letdown'...I guess their parents didn't explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Oh well. If you love fantasy-fun films and haven't seen this one, I highly recommend it! Enjoy!@@@1 +The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.

To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.

Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.@@@0 +This is one of those feel good, Saturday afternoon movies. It's right up there with other retro flicks like Flight of the Navigator. Just a cute movie with some subtle comedy to lighten things up. And it's fun to see how 20 years has changed the stars like Kelly Preston and Lea Thompson. Not to mention Joquin Phoenix.

I personally really like movies like this from time to time. Nothing too deep or too scary. Just a nice story line. And I would have never known Mr. Phoenix had I not recently read the credits. He was just a baby really when he made this movie.

Kelly Preston was quite the young budding actress then too. She and Lea did a wonderful job in this movie. I agree it's not an Oscar caliber movie. But very much worth watching. Especially if you have kids in the , let's say, 8 to 11 year old range. Or ones that are interested in the space program.@@@1 +this is the perfect example of something great going awfully bad... hence, can i advice anyone to watch it? well, i was kinda obliged by the fact that in was in the tiff competition (i still can't believe it won)..and i only remained until the end because the director was there for a q&a section..but that was also anything but interesting.. what's it about? well the first half (the worth watching one) presents three characters: a hooker, a musician and some kind of official..the first two lie about their professions..but the third is the actual liar.. the second half (do something else..don't ruin a good evening) includes some old breasts and heavy drinking.. but maybe you will see it completely different...the tiff jury did (were they drinking vodka ?)@@@0 +Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.

This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.

The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.

This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.@@@1 +As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.@@@0 +To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).@@@1 +I agree with the previous comment, the beginning of the movie is quite good, and get's you wandering about what is to come....... Which is nothing. All open story lines remain open; two characters who at first seemed like they might be of some importance are completely left out of the picture, save for 1 or 2 very short scenes. I wander if Ilya wouldn't have done better to just completely leave them out.... As for the one remaining character, nothing is done with her either. She just visits some god-awful place, and suddenly the movie isn't about her anymore, but about some geriatric witches who spend their days making dolls out of bread, drinking homemade vodka, and apparently flashing each other. Some may say the movie does well in showing a society crumbling, like the judges of the IFFR, but for me it is just bad taste, bad camera-work, a lousy script and frightfully bad direction. Therefor I can not be as generous as my predecessor when it comes to grading: 1!@@@0 +This is a family film, which to some people is an automatic turn off. It seems that too many people do not want to see films that are not loaded down with failing arms and legs, gratuitous violence and enough expletives to fill the New York phone book. This film is none of those. It is cliché, it is formula, but it is also fun. It doesn't ask you to think, it doesn't demand that you accept the film as reality. It simply does what a good film ought to do, which is to willingly suspend disbelief for two hours and enjoy the adventure. The cast is good, while not excellent. As another commenter pointed out the John Williams sound score was, as usual, excellent. And the fact that a lot of the film was shot in Huntsville at the real space camp made it even more believable.

It was ironic that the original release of the film was delayed for some months due to the Challenger Shuttle disaster, which may have played a large part in it's original theatrical opening, but the film eventually has helped to focus the dreams of many young people back towards space and the possibilities that lie therein. SO sit back with your kids and prepare to enjoy.@@@1 +The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness.

In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?

Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.@@@0 +The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.

Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around

excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math@@@1 +The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.

I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.

Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.@@@0 +A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.

First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.

It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.

The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.

Overall, it is a good family movie.

@@@1 +Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.

The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...

This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...

I do not ever wanna see this movie again.

Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...@@@0 +i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge.@@@1 +The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.@@@0 +Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.

While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.

I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.

All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.@@@1 +Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick!

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!@@@0 +I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch.

They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.

Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.

I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.

Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.

The DVD I have watched feels edited for television.@@@1 +The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.@@@0 +I could see this film is super He didn't surprise to oneself when so that it was taking place for the truth, this way by itself how swigged flight to the which didn't have the place but it is only such an conspiratorial theory, Right?

Very I liked watching this film when I was the child. I am interesting which so that it was if it turned out that such a flight was taking place really, certainly to it for not a belief because it is denying logic and the common sense. Who at healthy senses, sent to kids with space shuttle into the orbit. I very like reading for the subject, American and Soviet space programs. I know a few missions of space shuttles remained provided by CIA with the clause TOP SECRET certainly these are only such my divagations but who knows?@@@1 +The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.@@@0 +Watching this movie again really brought back some great childhood memories . I'm 34 now, have not seen it since I was 12-14. I had almost forgotten about this movie, but when I watched it again recently, some scenes literally brought a tear to my eye! That little robot "Jinx"(friends for ever!). It was just like revisiting my childhood. It was an absolutely amazing experience for me. I will always cherish this movie for that reason. I hope some of you readers can relate to my experience, not for this particular movie, but any movie you have not seen in a long while. Very nostalgic...

-Thanks for reading@@@1 +I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.

This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.

Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.@@@0 +WOW!

This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.

Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE.

It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One.

In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.

Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.

We must never forget.

@@@1 +I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.@@@0 +When this first came out 6 months after the tragedy, I didn't want to see it. I didn't want to open old wounds. I regretted it. Now I have seen the movie. Thank God I did. It shows you the bravery of all the FDNY and NYPD. I salute you. It offered me closure. I can now move on with my life.@@@1 +Perhaps being a former Moscovite myself and having an elastic sense of humor prevents me from tossing this movie into the 'arthouse/festival crap' trashcan. It's not the greatest film of 2005, nor is it complete garbage. It just has a lot of problems. I also sincerely doubt this movie was banned due to any 'ideological fears', or 'conservative taboos' or any other reason this movie might conversely be called 'courageous' and 'uncompromising' abroad. It was banned because the censors knew 99% of the Russian film-goers would find it offensive because of the bad taste exercised during the shooting and editing of this otherwise dull film.

So we have a strong opening shot. Wonderful sound design, excellent premise - laden with meaning and symbolism. The usage and placement of symbols will consistently be of the film's strongest aspects (not that the number 4 is a daunting visual challenge). Over the next 40 minutes we have an equally strong setup. An amusing and well-written bar conversation among the 3 (main?) characters, and we feel pathos for these people, the great country of Russia, the human condition and all that. Then the movie starts slowing down. We begin to wonder what -yawn- lies ahead.

The rest is quite boring, simply put. Sure, the guy in the village tugs the heartstrings, and there are some slightly amusing moments. Nice sound, sure. But the enjoyment of this movie, not to mention the plot, are seriously compromised by the pacing problems. And this, this lack of a payoff for sitting through all the (nicely-shot) abject misery and bleakness, is what ultimately will make people angry at the 'offensive' stuff (personally, the main offensive scene bordered on being endearing, in that pathetic way harmless drunks can appear).

If you want to watch an enjoyable movie where Russians get wasted for prolonged periods of time (the entire film), watch Particulars of the National Hunt. Much more rewarding post-Soviet stuff. So yeah, a 4 out of 10 for 4, nice and symbolic of my post-mediocre-film condition.@@@0 +These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.

The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City.@@@1 +The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.@@@0 +If I didn't know any better, it almost seems like it was staged, but it wasn't. It was set up perfectly, and how they got all of that footage is amazing! The unfortunate events of September 11, 2001 are put together well in this documentary and the classic footage that they got made this an unfortunate classic. Just the history in the footage alone should make it a MUST see for any american or person touched by the tragedy of September 11.@@@1 +I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.

The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.@@@0 +SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10@@@1 +This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.

It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.

Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.)@@@0 +Amazing documentary. Saw it on original airdate and on DVD a few times in the last few years. I was shocked that it wasn't even nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar for 2002, the year it was released. No other documentary even comes close.

It was on TV recently for the 5th anniversary, but I missed the added "where are they now" segment at the end, except I did catch that tony now works for the hazmat unit.

I've seen criticism on documentary film-making from a few on this list. I can't see how this could have been done any different. They had less than 6 months to assemble this and get it on the air. The DVD contains more material and background.

I'm also surprised that according to IMDb.com, the brother have had no projects in the four years since. What have they been doing?@@@1 +'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.@@@0 +It took us a couple of episodes to "get into" Dark Angel as a story and a series, since we were transitioning from The Sopranos, a very different mentality framework. But, once we got with the gist of the series, we were very quickly hooked. It's a shame that the series ended just when it was just starting to past good into the excellent category: Dark Angelwas much more than your average TV series. It kicks ass and rocks as far as action goes, but the interactions of the characters and societal reactions to "mutants" reminds us of the constant prejudices that we face (and make) everyday. That the story is set in the future keeps the mood surreal and prevents the anti-discrimination message from being rubbed in our faces (hence not ruining the "fun" for those who don't like to be lectured during entertainment), but every event and human/societal interaction remains relevant to the present. We all make judgments, face our own prejudices, but, in the end, the question of who you are lies in: do you sit back and shut your mind to it, or do you get up and do something about it? For those who have no choice but to fight, for survival or justice, this series empowers them. For those who've never had to face the question, this series "sneaks in" that message under the guise of pure action entertainment. It is much more well-made and well-written than most TV series; I'm highly disappointed it ended before it could really kick into high gear.@@@1 +I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!@@@0 +Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen.@@@1 +This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.

I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.@@@0 +The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.@@@1 +MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.

Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.

Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.@@@0 +Difficult film to comment on, how do you say it's bad? Well it isn't, but then it's equally difficult to say it is good. What it is, is compelling viewing, it is as close as you will get to utter devastation without being there. It is the photographs of the tsunami approaching the coast of Thailand brought to life, you know you want to turn away but you have to watch.

The Naudet brothers handle the commentary very well, even in the most tragic of circumstances, there view on something which is happening in another country neither panders nor insults. The facts are on the cellulose and little is needed for the viewer to understand or comprehend what is going on.

You can't change history, and you should not want, this film stands as a testament to humanity in its darkest hour.@@@1 +i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10@@@0 +I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and

I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.

Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.

And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties.

So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened.@@@1 +This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.

All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.@@@0 +The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.

Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.@@@1 +In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.@@@0 +Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.

That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.

Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way.@@@1 +Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)@@@0 +I live in Missouri, so the direct effects of terrorism are largely unknown to me, this brought it home. That two men would put themselves on the line in the way that those members of FDNY and NYPD did, just to document the horror that unfolded on that day. This film is a testament to those who lost their lives and the true evil that terror brings.@@@1 +Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and – it has to be said – the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!@@@0 +Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.

Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.

Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.

The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis.

Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date.@@@1 +Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.

This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.

Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.@@@0 +I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help.@@@1 +Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.

Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.

SIGNED, THE ANSWER@@@0 +I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!@@@1 +This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.

2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.

If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.@@@0 +dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me!@@@1 +I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.@@@0 +Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.

Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.

Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.

After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.@@@1 +After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.

To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.

As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.

In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.

Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.@@@0 +To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced "Nau-day") want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a "newbie" from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the "Probies" at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.

Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about "Probies." It is that they are either "White Clouds" or "Black Clouds," meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the "Probie." The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a "White Cloud." After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....

September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives.

Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse.

What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this "Probie" has proven himself.

Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom.

@@@1 +Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.@@@0 +This was the most visually stunning, moving, amazing and incredible story I've ever experienced. Quite frankly, even those adjectives just cannot describe it. I can't just choose one scene that stood out for me. I suppose if I had to list a few it would be the reactions of the fireman to the crashing sound of jumping victims; the reaction of people trapped in the elevator, who were unaware of what was going on, as they finally emerge to the horrific scene; the shock and disbelief of the onlookers; and finally the silence.

On that day, and even now, I am reminded of Star Wars (1977). Obi-Wan says, `I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.' It is amazing how it is so accurate in its description. There was truly a disturbance in the Force.

This documentary vividly reveals this disturbance. The feelings are so incredibly visual. The anger, the frustration, the shock, the fear, the exhaustion, and the realization of its very magnitude. It's all there. Not a thing is missed.

This is a powerful and most moving documentary and well deserving of the Emmy. Not just because it documents 9/11 but because it is simply everything it should be.

If you plan to watch, be sure to grab a box of tissues. You'll need them. I know that I did.@@@1 +This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.

I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.

The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.

The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.

I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.

I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.@@@0 +To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.

IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.

I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.

How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.

jf@@@1 +Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."

Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."

I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.

There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.

Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.@@@0 +I was a little skepticle if I should watch this when it was first shown on CBS. I was one of the many people who were in NYC on that day, I was going to school at Hunter College. I didnt want to see all the devistation and carnage again, but like many I was curious to see what this was all about. Tears came to my eyes watching this documentary. All my memories returned and just the intense images were unbelievable. I bought the DVD on the one year anniversary and watched it a few times. How these guys were able to capture this footage was incredible. If you have not seen this documentary, do yourself a favor and check it out. It is obviously depressing and will bring tears to eyes, but it's an incredible document of this countries darkest hour.@@@1 +Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10@@@0 +Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary.....@@@1 +I can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.

What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.@@@0 +Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended.@@@1 +After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.@@@0 +**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**

(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective.

In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together.

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter.

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion.

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them.

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.@@@1 +I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).

I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).

"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.@@@0 +9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).

In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.

The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.

The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?

This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.

I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?

There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?

There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying.@@@1 +This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.@@@0 +It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.

No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.

I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.

The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.

Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.

We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.

Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7.@@@1 +In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.@@@0 +I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!@@@1 +The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.@@@0 +"9/11," hosted by Robert DeNiro, presents footage from outside and inside the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001.

Never too grisly and gory, yet powerful and moving. "9/11" is a real treat. Anyone not moved by this television show is immune to anything.

5/5 stars --

@@@1 +This "film" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)

What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.

What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still "wants" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)

What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the "I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)

What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,

What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.

I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.

I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.

Big Budget Action films: "you so have to die"@@@0 +My roommate had bought this documentary and invited me to watch it with her. She's from China and only heard so much about 9/11 and wanted to know the cold hard truth and she wanted me to tell her more after the documentary. I felt awful watching this documentary, it was like reliving the nightmare and it still brings tears to my eyes.

But I'm extremely grateful that I watched this documentary, because on the day of September 11th, I'm sure we all remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard, all of us could only think certain questions: "Why?", "How?", "What's going on?", "Oh, my God!". Almost all the Americans were grateful for the brave firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save others. But I don't think we thought about what they were really going though. This wasn't actually supposed to be a documentary about 9/11, the cameraman was just filming a typical day on the job and they just happened to be a couple blocks away from the World Trade Centers and got everything, outside and in, on tape.

On Sep. 11th, I thought to myself "It's OK, the policemen and firemen will get the people out that survived". To be honest, I thought it was an accident, I was in my junior year of high school and getting changed from gym and getting ready to go to my science class. Someone came into the locker room shouting "Some building just got bombed in New York!", we all got dressed quickly and ran to our classrooms as we watched the first tower burning on TV. Not only 15 seconds later live on TV does the second plane crash into the other World Trade Center and we knew this was no accident. A few minutes later, we heard about the Pentagon and that there was a plane headed for Chicago but was shot down. So many thoughts ran through our heads and I kept on thinking "What are the firemen and policemen going to do?". But it's procedure to them I thought, they'll know what to do.

The first tower collapsed, we knew it, so many lives are now gone, the second tower crashed, things would never be the same. Those firemen in this documentary showed courage, confusion, and strength, the real raw human emotions. They didn't know what to do, they were just as scarred as those other people who were in the towers. They heard the bodies collapsing on the ground from people jumping out the windows. And here I was in a classroom just crying seeing all that was going on on TV. I was amazed with this film and just wanted to go to New York and tell them how grateful all the Americans were for their help. I know they feel like they were just doing their job, but they did more, they were hero's. Every day after Sep. 11th for 3 weeks they kept on digging knowing that there were no survivors, but they kept on hoping and praying. May God bless their kind and brave hearts.

As for my roommate she was crying and admitted this was her first time crying at these attacks. She got to see the truth of what had happened that tragic day. She asked "Why?". I didn't know what to say, it breaks my heart that people can be that evil. "It sounds clique', but it was a normal day for everyone" one of the firemen said in the documentary. No one expected this to happen. Not like that, those people in the World Trade Centers or the Pentagon or the planes that were hijacked, they were just doing their job, happen to be there, or even just was there for a second passing by. They were not just murdered, they were slaughtered, and those hijackers did it with a song in their heart. Then seeing in the middle east all the people celebrating, why do people do this? They celebrated death and the lose of: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why?

So, thanks to those people for making this documentary. You truly think about the firemen, policemen, and the troops in Iraq and it keeps your hope up that there are good people in this world. Thank you to all those people, you are our heroes.

10/10@@@1 +This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.

Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.

The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.

Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.

@@@0 +I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.

Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.

While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.

What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.

If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).

9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this.@@@1 +This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.@@@0 +I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.

It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.

A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.

Regards,@@@1 +First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).@@@0 +It's a good movie maybe I like it because it was filmed here in PR. The actors did a good performance and not only did the girls be girlish but they were good in fighting so it was awsome! The guy is cute too so it's a good match if you want to the guy or the girls.@@@1 +I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.@@@0 +Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!@@@1 +A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.

In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.

The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.

Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.

Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.

The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.

If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.

In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.@@@0 +A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels.@@@1 +Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.

The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.

Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.@@@0 +Of course I would have to give this film 10 out of 10 as my uncle was the main screenplay writer of Once upon a Crime. Rodolfo Sonego wrote screenplays for over 50 years living in Italy. He was a great story teller and someone suggested that he put his stories into writing. So Rodolfo Sonego did. If you check out his biography, you can see the number of movies that have been made in Italy. Alberto Sordie was the main actor that starred in his stories. My uncle visited Australia and my town, in 1968 to check out locations for "A girl in Australia" and created a great movie about a proxy bride after the second world war. You can see his humor in all his movies. I found a copy of this movie on DVD recently. GREAT@@@1 +Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.@@@0 +I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named "Once Upon a Crime...". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a "great" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected.@@@1 +This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story – I do not understand what they are there for – they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.

Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt – shudder – is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it – but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.

As for the rest of the plot – the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back – yawn - or Karl – who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece – although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.

By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!@@@0 +I love Monte Carlo and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought everyone was very good. I was not familiar with Richard Lewis, I thought he made his character (Julian Peters) very personable, funny and attractive. Sean Young was very good as the befuddled rejected girl with a heart of gold. George Hamilton was charming and the perfect Italian gigolo. John Candy has a field day as the bon vivant. James Belushi is hysterical as a total jerk. Cybill Shepard gave a very sweet performance as a nice vulnerable ignored housewife. Delightful ensemble cast. Lots of talent, clever script, lots going on and beautiful locations. Just a nice pick me up for a dreary day. Especially in the winter when a trip to Europe is not anywhere on your horizon.@@@1 +I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.@@@0 +Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban "cave". So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an "ad-man" tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more "ham". More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.@@@1 +This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Branaugh seemed to have so much trouble remembering his accent that he couldn't deliver his lines. The plot was definitely not worthy of John Grisham's name. No wonder it was never published as a book or released in theaters. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I decided I didn't care who done it, then realized there was no "whodunit" to care about!@@@0 +With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.@@@1 +Might contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)

Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.@@@0 +This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!!@@@1 +Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.@@@0 +John Candy's Performance in Once Upon A Crime is possibly his best ever. It's been My Favourite Movie since it came out. I Spent 5 Years searching for it. That's How Good It Is. If You Disagree, well, that's your opinion. Enjoy The Movie.@@@1 +The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.@@@0 +I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!@@@1 +I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.

The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.

I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".

Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.@@@0 +...about the importance of being young, having friends, and most of all enjoying life. Through the experience of four friends, Ligabue shows to the audience how life was back in the 70's in a small italian village. the four carachters represent the four different aspects of human behavior; also the drug experience is well represented.@@@1 +What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.@@@0 +Nice movie with a great soundtrack which spans through the rock landscape of the 70's and 80's. Radiofreccia describes a generation, it describes life in a small village near Correggio (hometown of Ligabue, the singer who wrote the book that inspired the movie), it describes life of young people and their problems relating to the world. It reminds of Trainspotting, with a bit of Italian touch.@@@1 +This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!@@@0 +"Radiofreccia" is still a good surprise in Italian cinema. The film is based on a book of Italian songwriter Luciano Ligabue, who also directs the movie and writes the music score -of course.

The film is a portrait of north Italian province life, in the Emilia Romagna region. We're in 1975, the time of the first free radios -one of the boys of the movie creates "Radioraptus". Youth wishes, friendship, love, sex, individual dramas and unemployment are among the themes, but the film speaks also about drugs -Freccia, the main character, is a victim of heroin slavery.

Without being boring and moralist, the story flows very well; the spontaneity of actors is strong and the way of directing as well. Obviously Luciano "Liga" Ligabue is neither Fellini nor a movie professional, first of all he's a musician. But he succeeds in making a good product. Unfortunately he'll not repeat the success with his second movie "Da zero a dieci" -not good at all.

In "Radiofreccia" actors are generally not very famous, the only star is Stefano Accorsi -one of the most popular young Italian actors. See in a small role another Italian songwriter -Francesco Guccini, he's the nice communist barman and football trainer!@@@1 +When my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.

We were misled, in spades.

On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.

And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.

OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.

If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.@@@0 +Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.@@@1 +Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.@@@0 +Now this show looks like most of the other shows of it's type from the mid-90's, but the only thing is about this one is that it's different, they use a lot of comedy and action in this one and maybe a little bit of drama too. I personally thought it was a good show, I can't understand why would they cancel it. The good thing is that the fan base of this show is still alive ever since 1997 up to date.

My hopes is that the WB bring back the show or even do a movie, which I know is gonna be impossible to do, but hey it doesn't hurt to dream, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would recommend if you hadn't seen it to find the DVD of all 13 episodes, because the characters are great, the story lines are good, the comedy is good and well the whole show is just great.@@@1 +Characters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.@@@0 +A classic cartoon, always enjoyable and funny. It has an interesting plot complete with lovable characters. Road Rovers is a show worth seeing, it is a short 13 episodes, and if you can ever manage a chance to see it, you should. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. I think Warner Brothers Studios should release a DVD that contains all 13 episodes. I would definitely buy it if they did, and if they do, you should buy it too. if you have kids who like dogs, they will love road rovers! Road Rovers should have gotten more attention while it was being aired, it was definitely an original and very special show that should have been appreciated much more than it was.@@@1 +I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.

For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.

For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.

A very poor 4/10.@@@0 +This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.@@@1 +Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.

The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.@@@0 +Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.

I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them@@@1 +Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time.@@@0 +The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again.@@@1 +In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.@@@0 +Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.

The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.

Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.

7/10@@@1 +the only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.@@@0 +I enjoyed this movie. Haven't seen Andy Griffith in ages and felt he fit this role perfectly. I've associated him with comedy but am pleased to see that he's versatile.

I wasn't troubled that Dotty's "anxiety disorder" may not have been verbatim from a psychiatric textbook. There are zillions of whatever-phobias and neuroses, and these can take on a broad variety of quantitative and qualitative forms. She is clearly a sensitive with extra-sensory powers as was understood by the local Indians but not by any Anglos. It is not surprising that this character is vulnerable and nominally eccentric.

Although this is taken to be a light "family movie", it is actually more sophisticated than it seems. Also, Hiram's twist at the end came as a pleasant surprise to me and tied all the preceding action together in a bundle. It's fun to contemplate the possibility of such spiritual guidance.@@@1 +I have seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me!@@@0 +Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role best in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--TAKE IT.@@@1 +It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.

Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.

Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.

Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.@@@0 +I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing.@@@1 +Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.@@@0 +me and my sister use to rent this every time we got movies and our parents would get so mad at so (but they let us anyways) and I love it...I can't find anyone that lives near me that knows what I am talking about...I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that loved this movie...I wish i could find this on DVD somewhere!! I would love to watch this now just bc I loved it so much as a little kid...and I'm 15 now!!! I remember so much about it...thats where I got the little bunny fufu song from and all my friends know the song but not the movie!! I think the little girl got there by sliding down the slide on her little playground thing@@@1 +How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.@@@0 +So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons.@@@1 +Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.

The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.

Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.@@@0 +Big rock candy mountain is amazing. i watched it when i was little, and still do to this day.(senior in high school). if i could imagine heaven, that is what it would look like. i wish i could live in big rock candy mountain where candy grows on trees. Zach Hyman is profs, and my best friend. little bunny foo foo is the man. it is so fuzzy and colorful that i dream about it at night. in fact, my friend who is 18 recently watched it for the first time and absolutely loved it. i recommend that people of all ages watch this movie. i am having a huge party this weekend with all my friends to watch this incredible movie. we are going to order pizza and watch the teddy bears giggle. i constantly find myself watching clouds and wishing i was that little girl that got to visit. thanks. bye.@@@1 +And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.

There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.

What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.

The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.

In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?@@@0 +When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this.@@@1 +If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work.@@@0 +Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ("White Christmas"), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs – Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas – head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's "The Money Pit", and again last year with Ice Cube's "Are We Done Yet?". One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.

The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.

With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ("Cole…Bill Cole"), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, "The House of Tomorrow", is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras.@@@1 +Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.

Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.@@@0 +This incredibly formulaic flick from the "Walker, Texas Ranger" squad contains some of the most unbelievable scenes ever witnessed within a TV movie. In addition, one can pretty much predict the outcome from the get-go. However, it's a fun little movie that gets the job done: it entertains. That's all it was meant to do and it does so. The stunts and explosions are fun and exciting and the plot isn't half bad. The acting is also decent, which isn't much of a surprise, because everyone knows that Chuck Norris is no Steven Seagal. If you're a fan of the genre (and of "Walker, Texas Ranger"), you will definitely love this. If not, then don't waste your time. 8/10@@@1 +First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.

However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.

In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast@@@0 +A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.

@@@1 +Terrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!@@@0 +Good show, very entertaining. Good marshal arts acting. Good story plot. The entire main crew did a nice job from Robert Urich, to Chuck, Norris, Jennifer Tung, and especially a BIG hand to Judson Mills. An especially fine tribute to Robert Urich, in his latter days. A GREAT ! actor who will be truly missed.@@@1 +this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife@@@0 +There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.

@@@1 +I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.

Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.@@@0 +I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie!@@@1 +This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.@@@0 +Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10.@@@1 +Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.@@@0 +If you're a a fan of either or both Chuck Norris & Judson Mills then this is the movie to see.It has a lot of adventure in it.It is a great follow up to President's Man.The chemistry between the main three stars(Chuck Norris,Judson Mills,Jennifer Tung)is incredible.My personal opinion.This movie along with the original,has turned out so well,that the networks should consider turning it into a regular series.If you've seen President's Man,i recommend this movie for you.If you've seen President's Man:A Line In The Sand but you haven't seen President's Man,then let me suggest that you do.You will not be disappointed with either one.@@@1 +This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.

Rating: 1 / 10.@@@0 +Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.@@@1 +There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...

Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.@@@0 +First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic.@@@1 +Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.

This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.

So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.@@@0 +Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.

Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.

It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.

Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.

I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.

Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.

For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend.@@@1 +This movie is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.

There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.

If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.

A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see this movie.@@@0 +Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since.

Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.

The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.

A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.

Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn.@@@1 +I feel like I'm the only kid in town who was annoyed by Branagh's performance. He is a fine actor by most accounts, but he simply could not pull off the Southern accent. I mean, it was deplorable. It was as if he was trying too hard to be a Yank. One of the previous reviewers questioned why U.S. actors were not cast in this film. I second that notion. It's wonderful when actors/actresses wish to expand their horizons, but it's another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. Maybe it was Altman, but he's a such a great director...

Well, I really don't want to bash Branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. Everybody deserves to screw up here and there. But it is hard to watch something so annoying that you'd rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through The Gingerbread Man.@@@0 +Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.@@@1 +If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys:

1. In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...?

2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...

3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.

4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.

Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...

Only for zombie completists.@@@0 +This movie is far better than the original The Jerk. I would highly recommend it to anyone who like quirky humor. We have incorporated almost as many lines from this movie into our daytime discourse as we have from Monty Python.

The card game with the hobos and then with Mr. Suicide. The scene at the dinner table and his distaste for turtle soup. The original The Jerk was too choreographed ans staged. While I like Steve Martin, he seemed like he was trying to hard. The Jerk Too is a spoof and will be enjoyed by anyone. The Jerk Too is family friendly unlike the original The Jerk.@@@1 +What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, "Who put Shaq in this movie???" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I "wish" this movie would go away.@@@0 +Honestly, when I saw this movie years ago I immediately wanted to turn it off. As I sat there for the next 10 minutes or so, I realized that the actor playing Navin stole the show. His facial expressions and comedic demeanor makes me shake my head as to WHY he hasn't been in more comedies. He has this "Marty Feldman" thing going for him but MUCH, MUCH more talent...taking nothing away from Marty. The movie really shocked me by how close it was to the original Jerk, but then again, it was SO MUCH MORE. I really think that if this movie was released first, and I saw the Steve Martin movie 2nd, I'd think the 2nd was a cheap rip-off. I know it sounds like a BOLD statement, but it's true. I actually like Steve Martin a great deal, but his performance is 2nd to the actor in The Jerk Too. I wish I could get a copy of it for my collection. I urge you to see it if you can find it.@@@1 +Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.@@@0 +I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.

First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.

Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.

I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime.@@@1 +Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).

This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.@@@0 +I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.@@@1 +OK so after watching this invigorating movie and wasting an hour and so many minutes off my life here is the basic summary: Genie comes out of ghetto boom box, gives this kid with shaggy hair 3 wishes, the kid wastes his wishes on i forget what, shaq sucks at rapping, and i guess thats it.

So mainly I laughed, I cried......but mainly I laughed at the shear comedy that came from the wonderful acting skills of an nba player/rapper and boy with shaggy hair.

I highly recommend this movie for college kids sitting around drinking some beers with their close friends and are in serious need of a good laugh.

I'm going to give it a 3 out of 10 only b/c the movie is based off of 3 magical wishes.

If I had 3 wishes one would be to erase this horrible movie and for everyone to pretend like Hollywood didn't waste money on making this.@@@0 +Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.

PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret.@@@1 +Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'!

The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.

Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.

As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.

So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation!

In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!

Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!

By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish.@@@0 +I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.@@@1 +The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".@@@0 +I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.

Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator.@@@1 +If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.@@@0 +I have just seen this film, and fallen in love with it. There is a little bit of something for everyone, and its a particular free for all when it comes to the romance between Lachlan and Lil. When they are on the beach, I nearly cried... there is the unspoken realization that time is the most precious commodity and it is most evident when they are together. This idea taken from several angles, from marriage to sibblings to finding love in the least conventional of places. The film almost makes you long for that kind of desperation when you know that tomorrow could very well be your last. Crowe was particularly wonderful in his role of Lachlan. I've always had a soft spot for the accent, but I nearly melted with his portrayal of his character. The way this film was shot is also beautiful, with the music, backdrop of the open fields, and superb acting. All together, this is a wonderful film that tugs at all of human emotions.@@@1 +This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.@@@0 +I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story.@@@1 +i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.

The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.

The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.

Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.@@@0 +Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.@@@1 +This is the worst film I have ever seen.I was watching this film with some friends and after 40 minutes we had enough. The plot was bad and there wasn't a single likeable character.I could get more entertainment watching static. I gave this movie a 1 only because the scale didn't go into negative numbers. Avoid this movie at all costs.@@@0 +Movie "comedies" nowadays are generally 100 minutes of toilet humor, foul language, and groin-kicking. Modern comedies appeal to the lowest common denominator, the undemanding and slow of brain. Sure, an occasional good comedy will come along, but they're becoming rarer all the time.

"Mr. Blandings Buildings his Dream House" shows what 1940s Hollywood was capable of, and it's just screamingly funny. Jim and Muriel Blandings (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) decide to build a house in the Connecticut suburbs. The film follows their story, beginning with house hunting trips, the house's riotous construction, all the way to the finished home--with its "zuzz-zuzz water softener".

Grant and Loy are perfect for their roles, of course (Grant is particularly funny as he watches the house's costs zoom out of control). However, the film is stolen by the Blandings' wise attorney, played to perfection by Melvyn Douglas. Managing to steal every scene he's in, Douglas is understatedly hilarious while he watches the Blandings lurch from crisis to crisis. Reginald Denny as the Blandings' harried architect and Harry Shannon as the crusty old water well driller are also wonderful.

I've watched this movie numerous times and it always makes me laugh. I think it's a good film to watch when you need a lift, whether you're building a house or not.@@@1 +How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.

Patrick Watson@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_6.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_6.txt index 6202462..df47c98 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_6.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_6.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9@@@1 -As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.@@@0 -Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.@@@1 -With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a "when it this stupid thing going to end?" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said "wow" at the end. Bad in every respect.@@@0 -This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.

Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.

If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.

@@@1 -this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead

Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!@@@0 -This movie was excellent. It details the struggle between a committed detective against the dedicated ignorance of the corrupted communist regime in Russia during the 80's. I give this movie high marks for it's no-holds-barred look into the birth and development of forensic investigation in a globally isolated (thanks to the "Regime") community. This is a graphic movie. It presents an unsensationalized picture of violence and it's tragic remains. Nothing is "candy-coated" with overdone blood or gore to separate us from the cruel reality on the screen. This movie is based on Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. I'm familiar enough with the true story to have a very deep appreciation for how real they kept the film. It's not a comedy, but for those who appreciate dry and dark humor, this movie is a must-see.@@@1 -Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME!

PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $)

PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.

PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!@@@0 -CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.

CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).

Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.

In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.

CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.

The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.

Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.

His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.

So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.

Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.

Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.

5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.

The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.

In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.

Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.

A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.

Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.

CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.

WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.

Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.

Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.

Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10)@@@1 -I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.

1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.

2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.

3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.

In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.@@@0 -I was surprised at how fascinating this movie was. The performances were extremely good, especially by Rea as the compassionate no-nonsense detective.

Despite a low budget, no big FX or flashy camerawork, Citizen X somehow manages to surpass the majority of similar big Hollywood films by just. Telling. The. Story.

True stories tend to end with a whimper rather than a bang, and that's the case here, but apart from that, this is a highly recommended detective yarn.@@@1 -"Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.

The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.

The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.

History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.

If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.@@@0 -This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.

The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."

Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.

This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.

@@@1 -This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.

The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.

I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting.@@@0 -"Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

** Mild Spoilers **

Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"

The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.

More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.@@@1 -1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.

And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.

Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).@@@0 -The poor DVD video quality is the only reason why I gave this movie a 9 instead of a 10. That could have been so much better, this movie deserves it.

This is truly a movie that covers several themes simultaneously. If you do not like movies about serial killers, but are fascinated by the astonishing bureaucratic culture in the former Sovjet Union, this movie is a must-see anyway.

I can't compare it to "Silence of the Lambs" for several reasons. The way the serial killer is portrayed, has been done far much better in Citizen X. You see several details of his private life, because you "travel" along with the killer, which gives you some idea of the source of his constant anger and sexual frustration.

The only other movie I have seen that is as realistic as this one was "Henry - portrait of a serial killer". If you were fascinated by that movie you definitely need to take a look at Citizen X.@@@1 -When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.@@@0 -Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film@@@1 -While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.

And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.

???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?@@@0 -I first saw this in the movie theater when it came out, and the crowd was really into the movie which made the experience all the more fun. This is a great cast of characters, many big names in it, a few of which were not as recognized then as they are now. I think it's a great idea if you follow any of these actors, or have loved them in other movies, to add it to your watched list. Some of the scenes actually remind me of the type of well-done comedy as in The Birdcage or even The Clue, kind of odd spontaneous-appearing comedy, with some really professional delivery from these beloved actors. The movie did a great job at giving you some insight, perhaps even very realistic, into the culture of a daytime soap.@@@1 -I haven't read a biography of Lincoln, so maybe this was an accurate portrayal......

And maybe it's because I'm used to the equally alienating and unrealistic worshiping portrayals that unnaturally deify Lincoln as brilliant, honorable, and the savior of our country......

But why would they make a movie representing Lincoln as a buffoon? While Henry Fonda made an excellent Lincoln, his portrayal of him as an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple guy" seemed a little insulting.

[Granted, that was Bushie Jr.'s whole campaign, to make us think he was "just a regular guy" so we wouldn't care that he's a rich & privileged moron -- but that's a whole other story.]

Not only did the film show Lincoln as sort of a simple (almost simple-minded) kind of guy , the film states that Lincoln just sort of got into law by accident, and that he wasn't even that interested in the law - only with the falsely simplistic idea of the law being about rights & wrongs. In the film he's not a very good defense attorney (he lounges around with his feet on the table and makes fun of the witnesses), and the outcome is mostly determined by chance/luck.

Furthermore, partly because this was financed by Republicans (in reaction to some play sponsored by Democrats that had come out) and partly because it was just the sentiment of the times, the film is unfortunately religious, racist and conservative.

Don't waste your time on this film!@@@0 -Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts – above all – which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.

For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes – which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.@@@1 -Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.

I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).

The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.

But we liked the maggots.

So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.@@@0 -Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.@@@1 -It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.

At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:

1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.

2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?

3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.

4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.@@@0 -I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre.@@@1 -"Fly Me To The Moon" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.

It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.

I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie.@@@0 -Imagine being so hampered by a bureaucracy that a one man spends 8 year's of his life, and has a mental breakdown trying to solve a mass murder case virtually by himself! The murder technique is clear, but a government unwilling to admit the truth let's a monster destroy dozens of lives. When I think my job is stressful, I merely remember the true story behind this wonder flick. The devotion to duty of the main character was masterfully portrayed by Rea. The comic (and almost tragic at times) relationship between Rea and the Sutherland character made this one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. The catching of one of the worst mass murderers in history had me on the edge of my seat. While not nearly as well advertised and talked about as "Silence of the Lamb's", the plot was just as suspenseful. Rent or buy this movie today!@@@1 -This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!@@@0 -Rea, Sutherland, DeMunn, and von Sydow (in a small role) are all brilliant in their performances. Sutherland is particularly adept at this sort of role, where he must portray a character whose morality is, at first, uncertain to the audience. As is so often the case with Sutherland's characters, we must ask "is he a villian [in this case, a minor one], or a hero?"

This is a disturbing story, intelligently told, about the incompetence and fearful bureaucracy in the old Soviet Union that impeded the efforts of extremely competent people. As Sutherland's character wryly notes, "The measure of a bureaucracy is its ability not to make special exceptions". The "committee meeting" (between Rea and Sutherland's characters) after perestroika is enforced, with its revelations, has enormous emotional impact. You can feel the suffering of the dedicated people who labored in that system.

The handful of dramatic scenes portraying victims' family members adds emotional resonance to the impact of the story. This is seldom a feature of a film with this sickening subject matter, but effectively reminds us that the victims had lives, and were loved.

This is a sad, but very important film, which deserved its showcase on Canada's History Television.@@@1 -The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.

@@@0 -Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.@@@1 -This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.@@@0 -A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.

The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause – to catch the serial killer.

Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.

Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help.@@@1 -The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".

As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.

We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10.@@@0 -Caution: May contain spoilers...

I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.

As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.

Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.

A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.

Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.

Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.

9 out of 10 stars@@@1 -Greg Davis and Bryan Daly take some crazed statements by a terrorists, add some commentary by a bunch of uber-right reactionaries, ascribe the most extreme positions of the most fundamentalist Moslems on the planet to everyone who calls themselves a Moslem, and presents this as the theology of Islam. Maybe their next film will involve interviewing Fred Phelps and the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, adding commentary by some militant atheist "scholars, and call their film "What the World Needs to Know About Christianity." Ultimately, this film suffers from both poor production values and lack of attention to the most basic standards of journalism. Don't waste your time and money; just turn on your AM radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of days for free and you'll get the same message with the same level of intellectual analysis.@@@0 -A surprisingly complex and well crafted study of "The First" serial killer in the USSR. Set in the days of perestroika this intense piece is brought to full life with the performances of Stephen Reah and Donald Sutherland.

This examination of Cicatillo as a killer is well rounded and by hinting at some of his behaviors while out right showing others there is a subtlety that is compelling without being overtly graphic. Not for the weak of heart however as it's subject matter is often disturbing but necessary to it's full development of the main participants in this fact based story.

HBO has furnished us with an excellent film in an unusual manner. Congrats to the director and editor of this great piece. It is in my Top 10 Must see list.@@@1 -This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.

Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.

And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.

A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it.@@@0 -There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.

So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief

Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it .@@@1 -That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion@@@0 -I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.

I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.

Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well.@@@1 -Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.

What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false.

Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say "Shonuff!"@@@0 -Spoilers - in as far as I describe characters and their relation to the plot.

This is a quality film. The subject matter is at once grim and gripping. The dogged determination of Stephen Rea's character, Burakov, is simply captivating. With any due apologies to him, his hangdog, continually put-upon expression serves the character well. He is, as we in England would say of the Inspector Taggart TV series character, bound to be grim because he sees three murders a week. Well, that's not strictly accurate as Chikatila operated over a number of years...

You get a real sense of the blankwall resistance of the USSR bureaucracy, brilliantly portrayed by Joss Ackland (who often seems made for this sort of role).

A key character (and I write this as the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is being shown on BBC1) is the Donald Sutherland character "Mikhail Fetisov". His quiet support of Burakov is steadfast. And it endures through Perestroika, and drives the involvement of the FBI for profiling. Brilliant.

This is a must-see, as far as I am concerned.@@@1 -This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...

The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.

To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?@@@0 -This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved.

I rate this film 10/10@@@1 -The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.@@@0 -"Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B)@@@1 -I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies…until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses.

The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.

For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help.

There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.

The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.

The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways.

The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.

The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law.

The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say… which is what the documentary did.

What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.@@@0 -Here's an oddity: a modern-day film about a serial killer that has no fight scenes, nobody seen dying, no car chases and no loud noises.....and it takes place in Russia. There are only two short action scenes but they are horrific.

The rest of the story is detective work, and how much red tape the poor detective had to go through to solve the murders. This is a very somber movie, and "somber" best describes the personality of the hero (Stephen Rea), as well. Yet, the story is not depressing and it's very interesting all the way through.

Rea is outstanding as the determined, harried-looked detective. Jeffrey DeMunn is downright scary as the killer. Donald Sutherland's Russian accent is suspect but he plays the only character in this film that has some warmth.

Once again, the story is dotted with liberal agendas, here and there, with not one but two references to bias against gays, the total validity of secular psychology, police and government officials being boorish/crude/bigoted, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Otherwise, it's an intelligent and refreshingly low-key crime film. This is a somewhat unique film that probably is not well-known but is well-liked by the people who have seen it. Since it's based on a true-life account of this killer, it's all the more chilling. Don't pass this by just because you haven't anything about it.@@@1 -It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.

One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.

When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.@@@0 -There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.@@@1 -I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.@@@0 -This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see.@@@1 -You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?

This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.

xx@@@0 -This has to be one the best movies about serial killers that I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who absolutely loved Silence of the Lambs. HBO has hit the jackpot here. This film is compelling from the first moment until the last.

This film has so many underlying themes its hard to tell exactly what it is about. It chronicles the decade-long search for the Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Stephen Rea gives a brilliantly reserved performance as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation, and Donald Sutherland gives an even more involving performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him. Both of their performances are subtle masterpieces---Rea begins naive and unwilling to compromise, while Sutherland begins detached and almost amused by the situation. Towards the end, Rea becomes more world-weary and beaten by the system, while Sutherland finds himself more passionate and idealistic.

In any other movie, I would have said that Sutherland's performance stands out above the rest, but here even it is rivaled by Jeffrey DuMann, as the serial killer himself. DuMann brilliantly creates a character here who inspires empathy rather than the hatred we think we would find---he is a monster, but he doesn't want to be, and we get the idea that he is just as disgusted with what he does as we are. He is tortured, ashamed, but vicious as well.

If you can take the incredibly dark subject matter, (and it is *very* disturbing), then you should see this movie.@@@1 -Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.

The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.

The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.

For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.@@@0 -Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen.

It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.

I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me.@@@1 -ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to.@@@0 -I remember following the case of Andre Chicatillo in the newspapers while I was living in South Africa. They had photos of him sitting in his cage while being prosecuted in court. Not, as it turned out, to protect the court members, but to protect him from the public. This was fascinating, albeit morbid, reading. I later heard that a film had been made by HBO about the case, but it was made for American TV. Bummed! Strangely, CITIZEN X got a limited cinematic release in South Africa. I charged down to the local Ster Kinekor complex and duly bought a ticket (I was alone; my girlfriend at the time was only interested in the likes of STEEL MAGNOLIAS and FRIED GREEN TOMATOES). Wow! What a brilliant film. Why wasn't it released to a wider audience? Had it not been made for TV, it could have got an Oscar nomination or 2. There is no way to spoil the ending; who the killer is is never kept from the audience. Jeffrey DeMunn portrays a truly terrifying psycho. He is calm, downtrodden, considered a failure by his wife and subjected to constant ridicule and humiliation by his superiors at work. By committing these horrendous acts, he gets to feel strong, powerful.

Fighting to catch him against all odds is a pathologist, played to excellent turn by Stephen Rea, in one of his strongest performances. He must battle the snail-pace of Russian bureaucracy, the primitive resources he has at his disposal and (above all) the refusal by his superiors to acknowledge that the USSR even has a serial killer. The general in charge (Joss Ackland) says that serial killers are "a decadent, Western phenomenon". Only Donald Sutherland is willing to help, but his help must be under the counter. The ever-brilliant Max Von Sydow plays a Russian psychiatrist who breaks protocol and decides to help the investigators in their quest. It is the first time in Russian history that a shrink is used to build a profile of a serial killer still on the loose, and he has everything to lose if his involvement is made public.

CITIZEN X is brilliantly acted, well written and the music and editing only add to the tension and theme of the film. Excellent support from a horribly underused Imelda Staunton and a real sense of impending doom make CITIZEN X a film worth seeing. This was too good to be made for TV@@@1 -The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?!@@@0 -Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.

Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.

Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane?

I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.

But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.

Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.

The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.

The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together.@@@1 -When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.@@@0 -It's very very funny. You know, just like a comedy is supposed to be. It also looks very very good, like a Hollywood Spectacular should. So, what more do you want? Howz about a very VERY good Sally Fields. She is so much better here than in anything else I've ever seen her in, and she looks so damn good. This movie is all you need to understand why she's a Star. Those eyes! Like a silent movie star, but better. In fact, everyone's eyes are so good. I used to pretend to be a bad TV soap actor with my girlfriend. We'd do that thing where you look real fast from one eye to the other of your partner. They don't do that at all in Soap Dish. Great. The Eyes Have It! (sorry)

There's so many terrific performances, its fun just waiting for each of them to reappear. There's a whole workshop going on with Kevin Kline on how to Overact very very subtly. Got that? Yeah, he's damn good. So is Robert Downey, Jr. who has since made sumthin of a career of playing the Slick, Slimy Executive. Cathy Moriarity, while not the most gifted actress, is so charismatic and riveting, especially when she's angry. And even Whoopi Goldberg is decent, her natural timing giving here somewhat flat delivery a little Zing. OK, no Whoopi Bashing, I hear ya.

And then, there's the Hair. Soap Dish was made at the end of the BIG Hair Eighties, so the ridiculous doos are like a great character in themselves. They get bigger and sillier, just like your's did. Yeah, we got pictures.

Soap Dish is better than I thought it'd be, better that I wanted it to be. I'm sick of Movies that tell me I'm supposed to care about shallow, self centered, semi-talented egomaniacs, ie. TV Soap Actors. Soap Dish seems happy just to have me laugh at 'em. Thank You.@@@1 -I tried twice to get through this film, succeeding the first time - and it was like pulling teeth - and failing the second time despite a great DVD transfer. The problem? It's simply too boring.

If you can get to the dramatic courtroom scene, which takes up most of the second half of the film, you have it made, but it's tough getting to that point. There are some interesting talks by "Abraham Lincoln" (Henry Fonda) during the trial. The ending is touching as Lincoln walks off and they superimpose his Memoral statue over the screen.

It's a nice story, well-acted and such....but it lacks spark in the first half and discourages the viewer from hanging in there. I suspect the real Abe Lincoln was a lot more interesting than this film.@@@0 -Although the word megalmania is used a lot to describe Gene Kelly, and sometimes his dancing is way too stiff, you have to admit the guy knows how to put on a show. In American In Paris, he choreographs some outstanding numbers, some which stall the plot, but are nonetheless amazing to look at. (Check out Gene Kelly's "Getting Out Of Bed Routine" for starters)

Gene Kelly stars as a GI who is based out of Paris, he stayed there to paint, soon he is a rich woman's gigolo, but he really LOVES SOMEONE ELSE! Hoary story sure, but the musical numbers save the show here! I really loved Georges Gu¨¦tary's voice work in this one. His 'Stairway to Paradise' and his duet with Le Gene on 'S Wonderful' is 's marvelous'. Oscar Levant and Leslie Caron I can take or leave. All in all, a pretty good, but not dynamite movie.@@@1 -When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"@@@0 -The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by!@@@1 -Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy.@@@0 -What makes for Best Picture material? The Oscars have come in for a lot of stick for rewarding overblown spectacles that have aged poorly, and ignoring the "auteurs" who would be deified in decades to come. It wasn't because Hollywood was against art or creativity. The Academy Awards are the selections made by the industry itself, and that is why, at least in the classic era, they tended to reward the greatest collaborations, the most sensational meetings of creative minds.

The Arthur Freed unit at MGM had been bound for Oscar-winning glory for several years by this point; it was only a matter of time before Freed, aided by his strongest director Vincente Minnelli and some the finest musical stars in the business, would land a Best Picture. Freed had arguably done more to raise the status of the musical than anyone else, crafting pictures which wove story and song together without losing the dynamic spectacle of the 30s musicals. The point about Freed musicals, is that the lyrics of the songs, unlike those of Hammerstein or Lerner, don't have to tell or even relate to the stories. What's important is that the tone of the song and the way it is presented fit into the structure of the film.

An American in Paris was the first of three Freed musicals (the other two being Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon) which took existing classic numbers out of their original context and made them work in a completely unrelated story. The words don't fit the plot, but the routines fit the show. So, when Gene Kelly sings I Got Rhythm, he hasn't even got a girl yet, but the way it's done with the French kids joining in is a great bit of characterisation, and the upbeat tune and dance gives the movie the little lift it needs at this point. An American in Paris also uses the rule-breaking allowed in the genre to add little unconventional flights of fancy to tell the story, such as the series of dances which accompany the description of Leslie Caron's character.

And what better director for this project than Minnelli, himself a painter and a pianist? At this time there wasn't really anyone who had a better feel for Technicolor. While some directors would saturate each scene in one colour or fill the screen with clashing shades, Minnelli's colour schemes are tightly controlled but never look forced. In the opening scenes the tones are fairly muted, but not drab, and in particular there is an absence of red. During Oscar Levant and Georges Guetary's meeting in the café, a few more vibrant shades are introduced. Then, during the first musical number, "By Strauss" Minnelli gradually brings in splashes of red – a table cloth, a bunch of roses – until it eventually dominates, as if the song has awoken the picture's colour scheme. For most of the songs, the colours are choreographed as intricately as the people. However, in some numbers, such as "Tra-la-la" he keeps the shades the same and instead opens out the space as the song swells up and the characters become more animated.

The Achilles' heel of An American in Paris is its story. I personally find the romantic angle particularly unpalatable, playing as it does like a last hurrah for the misogynistic love stories that reigned supreme in the 30s; the headstrong, independent woman gets rejected while the meek, delicate girl is harassed into loving the hero. Even if you don't mind that, it is difficult to connect emotionally with the story because it is constantly overshadowed by the songs and dances. Compare this to Singin' in the Rain, which doesn't really have as many great routines or memorable set-pieces as An American in Paris, but it has a winning storyline. Singin' in the Rain was overlooked at the 1952 Oscars, yet it is regarded as a classic of the genre today. But I think people sometimes forget that cinema is an all-encompassing form of visual entertainment, not just a means of telling a story. An American in Paris is not deep or engaging or tear-jerking but, like a certain DeMille picture that won the top award the following year, it certainly is a great show.@@@1 -Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.

1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.

I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.

every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.

The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.

Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.

The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.

There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.@@@0 -This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.

A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me.@@@1 -This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.

The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.@@@0 -The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, "An American in Paris", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.

Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancée of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.

The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to "Our Love Is Here to Stay" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. "I Got Rhythm" and "S'Wonderful" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while "Embraceable You" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in "On the Town" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.

As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise", George Guétary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras.@@@1 -From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.

I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice.@@@0 -This is your typical cheerful and colorful MGM musical from the early '50's and it's definitely on of the better ones to watch out there.

The movie got directed by the genre expert Vincente Minnelli and stars Gene Kelly in the main lead. Both did quite a few movies together back in those days, of which this one is probably their best known one.

The movie itself actually managed to win the best picture Oscar over the year, which meant it beat out movies such as "A Place in the Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "The African Queen", "Quo Vadis", "The Blue Veil", "Death of a Salesman" that year. A real accomplishment of course but at the same time also a bit too much credit for this delightful, bright and entertaining movie.

When you watch this movie you surely will be entertained by it all, which is also thanks to the movie its beautiful color look and the many nice characters within this movie. The musical numbers are also all nicely done, which is no big surprise when you have people such as Vincente Minnelli and Gene Kelly at work.

But really, couldn't had everything that got told in this movie been done in halve an hour less or so? I mean, we already know where the movie is heading to but yet it manages to stretch it out all for as long as possible. Not that it makes the movie drag in any parts, it just makes it a bit overlong. The movie could had also definitely been done with a few less musical numbers in it.

One of the better MGM musicals, that is not without its flaws though.

8/10@@@1 -Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.

Potential minor spoilers ahead.

I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.

The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.

What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.

The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.

Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".@@@0 -An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin.

The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include "I Got Rhythm," "'S Wonderful," and "Our Love is Here to Stay". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the "songbook" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is "The American in Paris" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.

It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.

Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a "real" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, "Who's Gene Kelly?" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.

Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.

Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.

Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.

Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of "Stairway to Paradise"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's "Concerto in F" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)

The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.

There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).

Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.

Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, "An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance." An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good." The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.

The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)

Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film." It was his only Oscar.@@@1 -One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.

Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?

Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.@@@0 -An American in Paris is a wonderful musical about an American painter living in Paris for inspiration. He meets a rich woman who admires his paintings on the street and she believes she can get his work to be even more popular to the public, e.g. in a museum. Golden Globe nominated Gene Kelly as the artist Jerry Mulligan is just perfect at both singing and especially dancing. He also meets the main girl Lise Bouvier (Leslie Caron) who is engaged to his best friend. He can't help his feelings for this girl, even after he finds out who she is engaged to. Filled with nice romance and wonderful song and dance, this is a very good musical film. It may drag slightly with his dancing dream sequence, i.e. The American in Paris ballet, but there is a good happy ending. It won the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music, Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Writing, Story and Screenplay and Best Picture, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Minnelli and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Director for Vincente Millenni (Liza's father). Gene Kelly was number 66 on The 100 Movie Stars, and he was number 15 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, "I Got Rhythm" was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 9 on 100 Years of Musicals, it was number 39 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, it was number 68 on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 58 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!@@@1 -Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.

La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.

La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever.@@@0 -If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.

The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.

Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guétary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.

Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guétary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.

I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.

But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.

I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.

The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow.@@@1 -This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.

As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.

And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story.

I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.

This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.@@@0 -... Oxford, Mississippi, at least. Okay, the Paris we get is Paris, Culver City apart from the Establishing library footage of the real McCoy but it IS Paris in spirit than which nothing, nowhere, is better. Okay, Kelly is no Astaire but then who is and Caron is no Hepburn, ditto but Alan Lerner is light years ahead of the vastly overrated Comden and Green who scripted Kelly's other 'big' 50s musical Singin' In The Rain (a curious replication of lyricists writing screenplays featuring songs by OTHER lyricists and just to balance things the Gershwin numbers are far superior to the Arthur Freed/Nacio Herb Brown numbers so Alan Lerner didn't have to feel too outclassed). The story needn't detain us any more than the anomalies -Kelly hasn't got change of a match and is a painter, i.e. bohemian, yet he is able to scare up a perfectly good suit at a few hours notice when Foch invites him to dinner at her hotel; in the well-documented Love Is Here To Stay sequence the lovers are strangely unmolested by passers-by, other lovers and the bridge in the background is totally free of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic - this is, after all, a feelgood musical so it stands or falls by the score and in this case it stands four square. As feel good musicals go it's definitely in the top 10.@@@1 -If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!!@@@0 -When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them.

It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).

This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades.@@@1 -This was a complete disappointment. The acting isn't bad, but the production was just so bad that at times I felt I needed to stop it, but I sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. It is o.k. if you are o.k. with cheesy moral plots and don't mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues Whitman. If you want a cheesy fictional story go for it.@@@0 -The story and music (George Gershwin!) are wonderful, as are Levant, Guetary, Foch, and, of course, Kelly. One thing's missing, and that thing is a good leading lady. I'm sorry, Leslie Caron bothers me. Anyway, despite her, the plot moves along nicely with the famous (and deservedly so) Ballet. Oh the colours, the dazzling reds, blues, greens, and yellows. Musn't forget the beiges as well. ; ) I just adore the contrast between the Beaux Arts Ball (completely black and white costumes) and the ever-so-brilliant Ballet.

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Please, by all means see it, and enjoy it, because though it isn't the best, it is MARVELOUS. But be sure not to forget that other Gene Kelly musical with the 20 year old girl that was catapulted to stardom just afterward.@@@1 -This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.

If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.

The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.

What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?@@@0 -An American in Paris is a showcase of Gene Kelly. Watch as Gene sings, acts and dances his way through Paris in any number of situations. Some purely majestic, others pure corn. One can imagine just what Kelly was made of as he made this film only a year before "Singin' In The Rain". He is definately one of the all time greats. It is interesting to look at the parallels between the two films, especially in Kelly's characters, the only main difference being that one is based in Paris, the other in L.A.

Some have said that Leslie Caron's acting was less than pure. Perhaps Cyd Charisse, who was originally intended for the role could have done better, however Caron is quite believable in the role and has chemistry with Kelly. Oscar Levant's short role in this film gave it just what it needed, someone who doesn't look like Gene Kelly. Filling the role as the everyman isn't an easy task, yet Levant did it with as much class as any other lead.

The song and dance routines are all perfection. Even the overlong ballet at the end of the film makes it a better film with it than without. Seeing that there really wasn't much screen time to make such a loving relationship believable, Minnelli used this sequence to make it seem as if you'd spent four hours with them. Ingenious!

I would have to rate this film up with Singin' since it is very similar in story and song. Singin' would barely get the nod because of Debbie Reynolds uplifting performance.

Full recommendation.

8/10 stars.@@@1 -When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.@@@0 -Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.

The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.

8/10

@@@1 -For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.

Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.

Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.@@@0 -Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run.

To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song.@@@1 -Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.

This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.

The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).

The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.

It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.

If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).@@@0 -While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist.@@@1 -Oh, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this "Serendipitous" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.

@@@0 -I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10@@@1 -Not exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate.@@@0 -Released two years before I was born, this Oscar-winning movie has it all - lavish Technicolor sets and costumes, breathtaking cinematography, superb wall-to-wall Gershwin music, superior choreography, a lighter-than-air screenplay, and great performances by Kelly, Levant, Foch, Guetary, and Caron. Hollywood doesn't make 'em like this anymore. Definitely, this is my favorite movie of all time, a standard by which I judge all other films. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY!@@@1 -The master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. "The Hazing" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value.@@@0 -Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say "they don't make 'em like they used to!" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see!@@@1 -This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.

It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic.

The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them!

If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague!@@@0 -I enjoyed this film. It was lighthearted, delightful, and very colorful. You can see that MGM was showing off Technicolor. There are hardly any colors that do not appear in this film. Every scene is packed full. The choreography was great. Gene Kelly is a wonder. He is so talented. The dance numbers in this film are all perfectly executed, and perfectly designed. He understands that the dances can tell the story as much as anything else. The last section of the film, the grand dance sequence, is very impressive. What makes this film very special is Gershwin's music. Few American composers have had a better gift for melody. I very much enjoy Gershwin's music. It is enchanting. Ira Gershwin is definitely one of the greatest lyric writers. He is so witty and charming. This was a highly entertaining film.@@@1 -I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.

I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.

Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.

In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating.@@@0 -Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.

But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.)

The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.

Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch!@@@1 -i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''

please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates@@@0 -There are few comedies like this, where almost every line and every character come close to flawless. This is soooo funny!! And it has quite a bit of satire there to. Sally Field is heading the field of truly outstanding actors and does a good, if not perfect, job with her daytime tv-diva. Sometimes her acting is just a little to broad and over the top, but 90 % of the time she is a riot! In the same league is Kevin Kline, Robert Downey Jr and Whoopy Goldberg (who unfortunately has too little to do here). Downey jr may not convince entirely as a comedian and has not the timing right all the time, but he struggles with his part which is, to be honest, the most ungrateful one. But the shining star here is Cathy Moriarty as Celeste, a true bitch if there ever was one with more than one nasty secret (you will see in the absolutely stunning finale!). Sadly Elisabeth Shue never seems to be quite comfortable in her part. I normally like Ms Shue, but here she acts as a fish out of water and sometimes seems to be in a different movie. But it is not something damaging and for the most part she is at least adequate. Otherwise, brimming with memorable lines and situations, this is a comedy to watch whenever it is on TV or wherever.@@@1 -Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.@@@0 -I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me.

When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days.@@@1 -Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")@@@0 -I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.

Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the "comments" index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.

Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing "Pal Joey" on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin "panorama" film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the "goody two shoes" roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of "For Me and My Gal"). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of "Pal Joey". This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to "Pal Joey." In my opinion, the WB film "Pal Joey" is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================

You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying "but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!". You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.

Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as "Joey's" enthusiasm to "start a nightclub". But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in "Pal Joey" (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================

Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no "chemistry". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse "forced" romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in "The Pride and the Passion". ====================================================

When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a "load of crap". ==================================================@@@1 -The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.

Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste.@@@0 -An American in Paris was, in many ways, the ultimate mixture of art and Hollywood musical. Made at the height of MGM's powers as a musical powerhouse, the film features memorable music from the Gershwins, who rightly have been called the 20th Century's equivalent of Beethoven and Mozart.

Gene Kelly was also at the height of his powers in this film, though it could be rightly argued that this movie was just the warm-up for his best work in Singin' in the Rain (1952). The two films are actually closely linked. Aside from the Arthur Freed connection, the Broadway Melody segment in "Rain" owes its existence to the incredible American in Paris Ballet sequence in this film. This might well have been the only time a dance number is specially mentioned in the opening credits of the film. And it deserved to be, as it showcases Gene Kelly's skills as a dancer and choreographer to their utmost degree.

The film's cast is uniformly excellent. Leslie Caron, incredibly making her film debut, shows a maturity that makes you think she'd been making films for years. Her introductory dance sequence, and later her work on the Ballet, provides some surprisingly sexy moments rivalled in MGM Musicals only by Cyd Charisse's work in Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon. Oscar Levant is hilarious as Kelly's stoic pal, who gets two of the film's best moments: during the end party sequence (which I will not give away for anyone who hasn't seen the film), and one of the film's most memorable musical numbers which couples his incredible piano skills with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects.

Less memorable are Georges Guetary as Kelly's romantic rival, though he does get a few musical highlights, and Nina Foch as Leslie Caron's romantic rival. The May-December relationship between Kelly's character and Nina's reminded me of the same "kept man" relationship seen between George Peppard and Patricia Neal in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

There are a few elements of the film that made it less satisfying for me than Singin' in the Rain. The Ballet, though lavish and well-produced, doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. Without giving away the plot, the Ballet just happens, with no real rhyme or reason. And unlike the Broadway Melody sequence, it really doesn't have anything to do with the plot -- and in the best musicals, the songs always have some sort of raison d'etre.

Making matters worse is the ending of the film which happens immediately after the Ballet. Although the ending shouldn't be a surprise (this IS an MGM musical, after all), I was hoping for a bit more ... movie after the Ballet ended. It's as if director Vincente Minnelli felt that he couldn't follow the Ballet with anything else. The film literally left me in the lurch.

That negative aside, An American in Paris rightly ranks alongside the best of Hollywood's musicals. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Singin' in the Rain, but it comes close and it remains a testament to Gene Kelly's skills as one of the greatest dancers of all time.@@@1 -The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious "in your face" homages to Sam Raimi and "Evil Dead" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed.@@@0 -I saw "An American in Paris" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are "It's Very Clear" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and "I Got Rhythm" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in "Une Chanson Americaine"). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it !@@@1 -Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.

Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.

So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs.@@@0 -Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM.

The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.

Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.

Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy.

Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.

Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.

In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.

In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.

Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated.@@@1 -i love horror films, low budget, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.. but how can anyone think this is a very good horror film? let's compare it to titles in a similar vein- haunted house films. the haunting, the changeling, the shining. or for a similar technology based horror film that was FAAAR better, (though still FAR from great) Demon Seed. OK, i'll be fair.. let's compare it to made-for-TV horror films! don't go to sleep.. waaay creepier and better done. salem's lot, the night stalker, night gallery, even don't go in the basement or crowhaven farm were far better. *SPOILERS* first of all, for as good a scene as the bloody shower scene was, you have a scene like the opening scene.. oh boy! the garden hose comes alive to hose down some frisky teenagers! TERRIBLE. also, just what we understand about the house.. it apparently needs to use its video cameras to see what is going on, and it's a very emotional house. not a spirit, or demon, or entity, it's a house thats "possessed", but by what? we are led to believe an inanimate object learned to love suzie/margaret, our protagonist? now that I'm on the topic of suzie.. another scene that totally bothered me, this poor old crazy lady comes, tells you she was your nurse, pours her heart out, falls in the boiling pool, struggling in agony for 45 seconds, and what does margaret do? does she risk her hands being burnt to save this poor elderly woman that came there to warn her's life? no, she stands there and watches! the acting for the most part was better than average for a horror film, but that's where the positives end. for at least a more interesting, and fun horror film about an inanimate object that kills people watch death bed: the bed that eats. i have a feeling the people who rated this so highly either haven't watched it since it originally aired, or remembered it scaring them as children. this film was pretty much merit less.@@@0 -Vincente Minnelli directed some of the most celebrated entertainments in cinema history... He was among the first Hollywood directors to show that a profound love of color, motion and music might produce intelligent entertainment...

'American in Paris' is the story of an ex-GI who remains in France after the war to study and paint... He falls in love with a charming gamine Lise Bourvier... Their romantic love affair sparkles as brightly as the City of Lights itself... The whole movie brings a touch of French elegance where technique, artistic style and music all come together in perfect synchronism...

The first musical sequence introduces the exciting personality of Leslie Caron in her screen debut... She is like a diamond, a touch of class... George Guetary describes his fiancée ambiguous grace in a montage of different dance styles, sweet and shy, vivacious and modern, graceful and awesome... The number leads to an unpretentious bistro, where Kelly and his very good friends in Paris share a gentle parody of Viennese waltzes... Later Kelly celebrates a popular tap dancing with a crowd of enthusiastic children singing with him 'I Got Rhythm,' and at the massive jazz nightclub Kelly spots the girl of his dreams... He is instantly hit by her sparkling sapphire blue eyes, and only one clear thing is in his mind, to pull Lize onto the dance floor and sing to her: "It's very clear, Our love is here to stay."

To the joyful 'Tra-La-La,' Kelly provides humor, wit and talent all around Oscar Levant's room ,and even on the top of his brown piano...

When he meets his pretty Cinderella along the Seine river, Kelly is swept away by his happy meeting with Caron... He expresses all his emotions with 'Our Love Is Here to Stay.' The piece had a definite nighttime feel as the two lovers were bathed in soft, blue smoky light... They start an enchanting dance-duet juxtaposing differing elements... Caron dances with her head on his shoulder, then tries to run away in a fluid way... They move backward, away from each other, then pause to rush toward each other, for a little kiss, and a warm hug...

The film's weakest numbers were those that bear little relation to the story... In one, Georges Guetary performs an entertaining stage show with showgirls in giant ornaments floating down to the stage... In another, Oscar Levant imagines himself conducting a concert, and playing not only a piano recital, but the other instruments as well... He even applauds to himself as members of the audience...

The extravagant climactic super ballet of the film is quite an adventure, a breakthrough in taste, direction and design... It is a blaze of love, fury and vividness... It is Kelly's major fantasy of his lost love and of his feeling about Paris as viewed through the huge backdrops of some of France's most Impressionist painters...

The number starts at the Beaux Arts Ball after Kelly finds himself separated from Lise, and begins a sketch with a black crayon... It gathers the important parts of the film's story through a constantly changing locations, all in the style of the painters who have influenced Jerry... The tour, richly attractive and superbly atmospheric, includes the Place De la Concorde Fountain, the Madeleine flower market, the Place De l'Opéra, to his Rendez-Vous at Montmartre, with the cancan dancers in a representation of Lautrec's Moulin Rouge...

Kelly seems to defy the boundaries of his physical self... Caron seems to dominate her space and sweeps you away to another time and place...

Nina Foch appeared very attractive and elegant in her one-shouldered white gown... In one of the film's most famous lines, Kelly asks her: 'That's quite a dress you almost have on. What holds it up?" Nina, cleverly replies, "modesty!"

'An American in Paris' garnered six Oscars, including an honorary award to Gene Kelly... The film gave us a wealth of memories to take home...@@@1 -It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.

One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience?@@@0 -Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.

Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film.@@@1 -I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...

Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.

This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.@@@0 -This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherché "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.

Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.

Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.

The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.

The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.

__________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.@@@1 -But I got over it. To me, it seemed that even the Author of the book favored Caroline. I felt so sorry for the character Louise, and she was constantly compared with Esau who was evil, I just felt the comparison was a bit harsh and un-realistic. Really though, the movie was bad. I wouldn't really see it unless you're ready for a big let down.@@@0 -updated January 1st, 2006

Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.

Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.

Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.

Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).

Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.

Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).

The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)

Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera.@@@1 -This movie is a perfect example of an excellent book getting ruined by a movie. Jacob Have I Loved is quite possibly the worst film that I have ever seen. There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful. To top it all off, the music is straight from a synthesizer and sounds unbelievably terrible. Bridget Fonda's acting is decent, but everyone else's acting is totally amateur. I would suggest this movie to someone who is studying to be a producer as a study on how not to produce a movie as it is chock full of bad cut-scenes, bad transitions and acting that should have been re-shot! Read the book and don't waste your time with this film.@@@0 -Etienne Girardot is just a character actor--the sort of person people almost never would know by name. However, he once again plays the coroner--one of the only actors in the Philo Vance films that played his role more than once. I've already seen him two other times and loved him every time because he was so funny and a breath of fresh air. This film also is great to watch because in addition to Girardot, there are many other wonderful character actors along for the ride--including Grant Mitchell, Gene Lockhart, Henry Walthal, Kent Smith, H.B. Warner and Nat Pendleton. This is quite an impressive cast, and they sure made the job easier for leading man and woman Edmund Lowe and Virginia Bruce.

These great character actors are one of the big reasons I love these old B-movies. While the mystery itself is rarely that terrific, because of the breezy writing and acting, the films really satisfy. As for this film, Vance is played wonderfully by Lowe but, like I said, the mystery itself is only an after-thought--with a silly plot involving hypnosis and suicides. Unfortunately, you cannot hypnotize anyone to do anything of the sort--I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD do anything like the evil guy could do in the film, I would have done it! Used car salesmen and a few of my old bosses would have been obvious targets!!

Overall, while not the best Philo Vance film, it was very good and it's a darn shame Lowe only played this role once. In fact, aside from William Powell (who played Vance five times), the series was hindered by a long, long succession of actors such as Basil Rathbone, Wilfred Hyde-White and Warren William (and many others) playing Vance. This is a similar problem that also plagued the Bulldog Drummond series--just too many different actors playing the leading man.

Well worth seeing and exciting--though also quite impossible.@@@1 -This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE!@@@0 -When Philo Vance (Edmund Lowe) is standing precariously on the edge of a balcony high above the city, apparently hypnotized and just about to step to his death,it immediately reminded me of a nearly identical scene in another film made nine years later, "The Woman in Green" in which Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone)is similarly about to hurl himself into space while being hypnotized.

Happily, both Philo Vance and Sherlock Holmes survive these attempts at murder by unscrupulous criminals. Exciting cinematic suspense in both these scenes. When will they learn you can't cloud the minds of great fictional detectives ?@@@1 -Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.

Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.

In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.

I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.

Sad that Albertson was even involved.@@@0 -I have been a fan of this movie for years and years. Because of Teri Hatchers move into the forefront, I had to take the movie off the shelf and watch it. Why people back in 1991 did not see how wonderful this movie was in beyond me? Sally Field and Kevin Kline are beyond fabulous. Although I never have watching daytime soap operas, this movie kills me every time I watch it. The acting is second to none for a comedy and the writing is so smart. I highly recommend that you watch this if you haven't already. You will get to see Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, and Carrie Fisher...to name a few...all give splendid performances.@@@1 -Scary, but mostly in the sense that will it be over before I turn 70. I saw this as a late night re-run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. Like crackers, it's better than nothing (but just).

Ray Milland is a little scary because he looks as if he's been stuffed by a taxidermist. Yvette Mimeux looks as if she's smoked up all the Beautiful Downtown Burbank Brown.

It's a sort of Roy Rogers version of Rosemary's Baby. This is one turkey that should never have been made. If you have insomnia and it's 1:30 on Saturday morning and there's nothing on but replays of the 1972 Roller Derby Chamionship, then I guess it beats that. But God help you if this is your only choice for entertainment.@@@0 -EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.

Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.

On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.

Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner.@@@1 -Christopher Lambert is annoying and disappointing in his portrayal as GIDEON. This movie could have been a classic had Lambert performed as well as Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in RAIN MAN, or Sean Penn as Sam Dawson in I AM SAM.

Too bad because the story line is meaningful to us in life, the supporting performances by Charlton Heston, Carroll O'Connor, Shirley Jones, Mike Connors and Shelley Winters were excelent. 3 of 10.@@@0 -S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.

MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.

Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market.

The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.

I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock.@@@1 -The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.

If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant.@@@0 -Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.

While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.

I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!

I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.@@@1 -This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!

2/10

(sorry for my bad English)@@@0 -I thought that it was a great film for kids ages 6-12. A little sappy, but the story is uplifting an fresh. It proves that the dreams of an adolescent can truly come true. I think that it's a great story for any kid who is feelings down, or feels as if there trying to juggle too many things among them. Very 'cute' film. Bravo.@@@1 -Seriously - avoid this movie at any cost. I just saw it in my first "sneak preview" ever and although I paid non-refundable money for it, I walked out of the cinema after a mere 15 minutes. Which already includes 2 minutes of discussion among my friends whether or not to leave. First time EVER I walked out of a movie. And I lived through some pretty bad ones.

It's one of those films that is dubbed (and badly so) even though it is shown in its original language. It relies on the oldest, simplest and cheapest jokes in the book. On the military ("What do we do once we reach the fighting zone?" - "You get out of the car and die"; actually, it's much funnier to read here that the way it was delivered in the film), on drugs (a guy eats some "space cookies", behaves really silly and misses his wedding or has to live through it while high - all badly written and acted), on women in the army ("Why do we only get trumpets? We were promised guns!" - "That's the way it is, that's the way it'll stay")... Argh. Okay, you might actually find these genuinely funny, but in that case you seriously scare me.

Additionally, I have seen better acting in the kind of soft porn films you get on European late night TV. So it had lame jokes (delivered badly), beyond lower average acting, lacked pace, was badly dubbed and edited – It just didn't work. At least not on any level used as a measure for films.

I would even be so bold as to say that this flick proves that there are people who can be a lot less funny zan zee Germans. And that's saying something if you like stereotypes. (Which I don't, it's nice to play with them, though. Just in case somebody thinks I'm not being PC enough.)

Instead of going to see this film, do something useful. Try to teach crocheting to prawns, paint your toenails in a really irritating colour, disassemble your bicycle, change some light bulbs, try to understand Einstein's theories, convert to a different religion and back - in fact, go and listen to "Last Christmas" by Wham! on endless repeat. Anything, but don't watch this awful flick.@@@0 -A great storyline with a message. Joan Plowright is superb as "Phoebe", Mike Kopsa is hilarious as "coach" and Richard de Klerk plays the role of "Carmine" superbly. Mischa Barton as "Frankie" puts in a good performance and Ingrid as "Hazel" plays her first lead extremely well. This film is superbly directed by Jo-Beth Williams. The editing is first rate.@@@1 -This film makes "American Pie" a sophisticated movie! No further comment needed. Humor is cheap, dialogues are stupid and the cast is awkward. Every cliché is used several times without any original twist. And far the worst, the movie turns out to be more catholic than the Pope. It's so sad.@@@0 -This is a great movie to see with your girlfriend. My friend and I both love dance and ran into this movie at the video store. We had to get it. With no violence and such a warming story its a great movie to relax to and just enjoy your night. I would recommend this movie to any family or just a bunch of girls looking for a cute movie.@@@1 -Well, AWFUL is just the first name. This movie is a cliché-ridden piece of junk. A high school comedy setup in a military training camp. I'm sorry I had to give this 1 star which it did not deserve.

THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:

Just about everything is totally forced, unconvincing and unrealistic. The HEPO (military police) will not come to get you if you don't make your appearance, especially not on your wedding day. The actors were pretty embarrassed during this scene, because the scene didn't work as it was so highly unlikely. You can sense it in their voices. Even if they were not such bad actors, they wouldn't have been able to save the scene.

Next the guy has to exercise in his wedding suit. No, there was no time to get him an uniform first. Man, this is great cinematography! I will remember this scene for the rest of my life.

There are also GIRLS in the camp--exciting--one of'em even a model, though not looking that great--and the baddest actress I've ever seen. I doubt in Hollywood they would let her say a single line in a B movie.

Okay girls in the military! Now this is getting fun. The girls are even placed on the same floor, so we can sneak to their room at night! In reality they would be placed in a different building a quarter mile away, separated by two fences with barbed wire.

There are tanks available we can use for a fun ride in our spare time, of which we have plenty. No, the tanks are not locked, and the ignition keys are inserted. No one will notice the engine sounds, especially not at night.

There is a bunch of sex scenes and references and all are below the waste line. We need those so the sexually obsessed Germans will like the movie as well. Switzerland is too small a market for any feature film. Well done!

One sex scene takes place in the kitchen. Surely, none of those facilities are ever locked. The military routines are as sloppy as they can get.

In the end of the brainless flick, the mafia hit men are about the take revenge on the poor guy trying to shoot him! Because he deserted his fiancée! Sure I buy that, the Italians are that way--a jealous bunch (not).

The bad guys attempt to do this in open daylight with two dozen eyewitnesses. Not at night in a dark alley. Again, military training grounds (where there is shooting with live ammo) are open to the public, anyone can freely drive or walk in there. There are no such things as guards or fences.

The deed however is prevented by the good captain timely launching a rocket into the Italians' car. The explosion knocks the hit men and the enraged fiancée off their feet. No one in 40 feet distance is hurt when the car is blown to smithereens. It's a COMEDY, remember.

Okay. It's a comedy, I got that, and I can live with that. No realism needed. Filmmakers can easily get way with this if it is hilariously, side splitting funny, or entertaining, interesting, challenging. Unfortunately it is none of those. It's just embarrassing. A rip-off from brainless American comedies. The latter are at least done professionally, with no amateur actors.

It is pretty boring and predictable, a waste of time and energy, especially to those sitting through the entire movie as I unfortunately did. Yawn.@@@0 -An excellent family movie... gives a lot to think on... There's absolutely nothing wrong in this film. Everything is just perfect. The script is great - it's so... real... such things could happen in everyone's life. And don't forget about acting - it's just awesome! Just look at Frankie and You'll know what I thought about... This picture is a real can't-miss!!!@@@1 -The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.

The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).

The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying.

The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.

Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!

I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though@@@0 -This film struck me as a project that had a lot of the right ingredients, but somewhere along the way they didn't quite come together. I don't know who made it, but it has a slightly Disney-esque feel. While parts of it are improbable (like when a pre-teen runs for a public office) and tend to prevent the story from being taken seriously, there is a healthy dose of normalcy (whatever that is) to keep things balanced and in perspective. The acting is alright. Strangely, the relationship between Frankie and her grandmother is convincing, but the relationship between Hazel and Frankie is a bit...off. It's interesting to see how she has to work hard to keep a balance between her best friend, her grandmother, and her two passions: ballet and baseball. Being a baseball player myself, it was quite painful to watch Frankie try to hold her own on a team of boys, but it does a good job of showing the struggle she faces. I read somewhere that she isn't really ballerina, but the editing in this film did a very good job of making her dancing look not only natural but beautiful. Overall, it was a good film about honesty and ambition, but its star Mischa Barton didn't quite achieve the level of realism we saw during her performances in "Lawn Dogs", "Lost and Delirious", and her small but shocking performance opposite Haley Joel Osment in "The 6th Sense."@@@1 -The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.@@@1 -Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.@@@0 -Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.

With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.

A great discourse.@@@1 -I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.

This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.

If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.

Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10.@@@0 -Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.

The cast of "Soapdish" is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.

This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out.@@@1 -Having low expectations going in, the opening new footage (clocked at over five minutes) of 'Husbands' came as a pleasant surprise. I won't say the new footage was grade A material, but it provided a very solid foundation for what "could have been" a good all-original film.

Unfortunately, this was put together in 1955, during a time of one day shooting schedules. After the new footage, Jules White decided to just thumbtack stock footage from 'Brideless Groom' into this short, making for a not-so-smooth story transition, which Jules and Felix Adler try to remedy with a quickie bit of new footage at the end, giving us the old, worn-out ending of the boys (Moe & Larry in this case) getting shot in the butt.

3/10@@@0 -This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all.@@@1 -St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.

I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.

Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.@@@0 -I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel!@@@1 -I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.

Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in.

Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".

Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"

Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.@@@0 -Claire Denis's Chocolat is a beautiful but frustrating film. The film presents a very interesting look at the household of a European colonial family living in Cameroon, giving the viewer an informative perspective on the lives of many characters and their interaction. However, the development of these characters is often maddeningly insufficient. For example, a central theme in the story is young France's inability to form strong relationships with others. Although this portrayal is executed flawlessly, notably in the way that Denis frames the story with scenes from France's return to her childhood home, the girl's lack of intimacy with the film's other characters makes it difficult for a viewer to invest much interest in her development (or lack thereof) as a protagonist. The general stagnation of the film's character development makes it difficult to become engaged in the loosely organized plot. The film raises a great deal of tension between characters, particularly between Aimee and the men in her life, but never fully addresses this social friction, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. The final few scenes are powerful but depressing. Denis's work is certainly interesting from an intellectual and historical standpoint, but if you are looking for a film with adventure or drama, Chocolat is definitely not the best choice.@@@1 -I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.@@@0 -This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective.@@@1 -What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.

Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life.

Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.

Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.

I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.

I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.

As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.

Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.@@@0 -I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside.

It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant.

For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut.@@@1 -I noticed "Fire" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.@@@0 -The story is about a little girl growing up in colonial Africa, but it is so much more than that.

Anyone growing up in the South would experience the same things. A longing for another, one of a different race, that cannot be consummated. Even a glance is forbidden. There are no words needed. Their facial expressions say everything.

It is the story of a black servant, Protée (Isaach De Bankolé) and a white woman, Aimée (Giulia Boschi). Their desire for each other is so strong that they torture each other because they cannot have each other.

The little girl, France (Cécile Ducasse) is lonely and spends all her time with Protée. She really can't see this dance.

One of the more irritating aspects of the film is the laziness of the colonials. They cannot even get undressed for bed by themselves. There world is about to end; they just don't know it yet. Their racist attitudes will be erased with their presence.

I think I would like to visit this Africa. It seems so quiet; especially at night when you only hear the animals.@@@1 -I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.@@@0 -I think this movie would be more enjoyable if everyone thought of it as a picture of colonial Africa in the 50's and 60's rather than as a story. Because there is no real story here. Just one vignette on top of another like little points of light that don't mean much until you have enough to paint a picture. The first time I saw Chocolat I didn't really "get it" until having thought about it for a few days. Then I realized there were lots of things to "get", including the end of colonialism which was but around the corner, just no plot. Anyway, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The scene at the airport with the brief shower and beautiful music was sheer poetry. If you like "exciting" movies, don't watch this--you'll be bored to tears. But, for some of you..., you can thank me later for recommending it to you.@@@1 -Heather Graham couldn't play a convincing lesbian if her life depended on it. Who do the producers of the movie think they are? the ABSOLUTE WORST, most UNREALISTIC movie i've seen in as long as i can remember. This movie is so bad that i felt compelled to sign-up on IMDb and make sure the rating of this "film" drops.

omg i'm Heather Graham, i just kissed a drunk chick, so while she's passed out i'm REALLY going to pace around my room for HOURS asking myself frantically "WHAT HAVE I DONE?!".. Jesus heather, get over it and grow up... and i'd like to forward that same sentiment to the idiot producers... and while i'm at it, instead of this movie being all about an pathetic excuse for a coming out story, perhaps it would have been more suitable to focus the plot onto a character who's mentally unstable... like your so-called "lesbian" character... after all, i know the first time i had gay sex, when i left the next morning i jumped to the sky in excitement in the middle of the street... honestly b*tch, get a grip...

WHAT A JOKE! and please note there are many many many more flaws and appallingly stupid aspects to this lame flick, but i'm so sick of even thinking about it anymore. bottom line, if you're a smart person you'll hate this movie, and if you're not a smart person, then you'll love it... it's as simple as that.@@@0 -I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!!@@@1 -I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.

I can imagine everyone thinking, "My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame." But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they "don't get" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of clichés and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.

I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.@@@0 -In reflecting on this movie I can think of two others to help put it in perspective. One relatively forgettable but covering the same geography, is Coup de Torchon, the other thousands of miles away and much larger in scope is the unforgettable Indochine. Claire Denis has produced a movie that has some of the grand underpinnings of Indochine, the complex and unspoken relationship between France and her colonial subjects.

I was struck with the dignity of Potee, with his struggle to maintain his dignity among his peers and with his white bosses. I was also struck with the love/hate relationship between him and Aimee. It is the latter that gives the film its driving force, it is the latter that links this movie to Indochine.

One never is sure what motivates everyone, though some of the characters are required of a remembrance of colonialism. It is this cynical side of the story that ties it to Coup de Torchon. Theirs is the more scandalous story, perhaps even more interesting in a depraved way, but Denis gives us a remembrance of how it was with all the tension and unresolved relationships.

The American black who gives the grown up France a ride in the beginning and end of the movie offers yet another interesting side to the confusion that we in the Western world have when we look at Africa. He says that when he came he wanted to call everyone brother. He was coming home, but they just thought him to be a little daft. France, the character and the girl, grew up in Cameroon, but neither fully understands what it is even though they can remember how it was.

@@@1 -OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.@@@0 -This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered.

The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimée and her servant, Protée. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protée or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protée lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.

Also interesting is the relationship between Protée and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.

There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protée! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.

While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.

Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel.@@@1 -Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.@@@0 -till HBO began rerunning it this month. I remember laughing out loud in the theater back in 1991, and now again in my living room. If I see that it's on, I have to watch it. There's just no question. This is so much more entertaining to me than other, more popular spoofs like Airplane! (which I really like, BTW). Cathy Moriarty steals the show in my opinion. Quotes like "Sudden speech! The last symptoms of brain fever! She could blow at any moment!" put me over the edge. And Whoopie Goldberg hasn't been this funny since 'Jumpin' Jack Flash'. Kevin Klein, Sally Field, Robert Downey Jr. all turn in superb performances as expected. I started out giving this 9 out of 10 stars, but then I realized that for the type of film it's supposed to be, there isn't one thing I'd change or improve upon. So 10 it is. I have to get this on DVD, that's just all there is to it.@@@1 -You've been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about "femme fatale" / "guns n' gals" movies! Now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries: ninja movies! Many of these I've seen before, and let me tell you, they aren't all that's cracked up to be! They usually don't stick to the point. This, among all others, suffers from no originality! What's a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in Russia? And isn't this supposed to be a "martial arts" movie, too? Does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you? Is blood the number one reason to love this to death? Will you waste some of your hard-earned cash over a lady singing in her see-through tank top? The answers to these important questions are found in THE NINJA MISSION, which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. For even more nonsense ninja fun, try checking out those Godfrey Ho movies put out by Trans World. You get what you deserve, and that's a promise! Recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts!@@@0 -Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' "houseboy," perhaps the only "real" human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite.@@@1 -Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.

Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!

This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)

3 out of 10.@@@0 -My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protée and Aimée compared to the one between Protée and France.

I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the "sexiest" scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, "Yes!" when he figured out the scene: the one where Protée is helping Aimée lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the "mirror technique" when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is "sexy".

Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was "Africanism", and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot "become" African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African.@@@1 -It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any "gray matters" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.

The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.

Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.

Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role.

This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.@@@0 -Set in the Cameroons in West Africa in the 1950s, Claire Denis' Chocolat is a beautifully photographed and emotionally resonant tone poem that depicts the effects of a dying colonialism on a young family during the last years of French rule. The theme is similar to the recent Nowhere in Africa, though the films are vastly different in scope and emphasis. The film is told from the perspective of an adult returning to her childhood home in a foreign country. France Dalens (Mireille Perrier), a young woman traveling through Cameroon, recalls her childhood when her father (Francois Cluzet) was a government official in the French Cameroons and she had a loving friendship with the brooding manservant, Protée (Isaach de Bankolé). The heart of the film, however, revolves around France's mother Aimée (Giulia Boschi) and her love/hate relationship with Protée that is seething with unspoken sexual tension.

The household is divided into public and private spaces. The white families rooms are private and off limits to all except Protée who works in the house while the servants are forced to eat and shower outdoors, exposing their naked bronze bodies to the white family's gazes. It becomes clear when her husband Marc (François Cluzet) goes away on business that Aimée and Protée are sexually attracted to each other but the rules of society prevent it from being openly acknowledged. In one telling sequence, she invites him into her bedroom to help her put on her dress and the two stare at each other's image in the mirror with a defiant longing in their eyes, knowing that any interaction is taboo.

The young France (Cecile Ducasse) also forms a bond with the manservant, feeding him from her plate while he shows her how to eat crushed ants and carries her on his shoulders in walks beneath the nocturnal sky. In spite of their bond, the true nature of their master-servant relationship is apparent when France commands Protée to interrupt his conversation with a teacher and immediately take her home, and when Protée stands beside her at the dinner table, waiting for her next command. When a plane loses its propeller and is forced to land in the nearby mountains, the crew and passengers must move into the compound until a replacement part can be located. Each visitor shows their disdain for the Africans, one, a wealthy owner of a coffee plantation brings leftover food from the kitchen to his black mistress hiding in his room. Another, Luc (Jean-Claude Adelin), an arrogant white Frenchman, upsets the racial balance when he uses the outside shower, eats with the servants, and taunts Aimée about her attraction to Protée leading her to a final emotional confrontation with the manservant.

Chocolat is loosely autobiographical, adapted from the childhood memories of the director, and is slowly paced and as mysterious as the brooding isolation of the land on which it is filmed. Denis makes her point about the effects of colonialism without preaching or romanticizing the characters. There are no victims or oppressors, no simplistic good guys. Protée is a servant but he is also a protector as when he stands guard over the bed where Aimée and her daughter sleep to protect them from a rampaging hyena. It is a sad fact that Protée is treated as a boy and not as a man, but Bankolé imbues his character with such dignity and stature that it lessens the pain. Because of its pace, Western audiences may have to work hard to fully appreciate the film and Denis does not, in Roger Ebert's phrase, "coach our emotions". The truth of Chocolat lies in the gestures and glances that touch the silent longing of our heart.@@@1 -I watched this movie yesterday and was highly disappointed.

Heather Graham and Tom Cavanaugh basically had to carry this awkwardly unbelievable script for five hours (or however long it actually was). From the beginning, every single element of this movie is unbelievable. This movie made me chuckle several times, but they were mainly out of shock that the director/writer actually expected us to believe the many messy scattered elements that attempted to piece this movie together.

The movie's focus is Gray (Graham) and her issues with intimacy. Things get interesting when she realizes that she and her brother have unexpectedly WAY too much in common.

Interesting, intriguing. However, instead of unraveling this story into something believable and palatable, the director keeps taking Gray into these ludicrous twists that never actually make any sense at all. Being an LGBT individual, this movie seemed to echo what all heterosexuals think we go through in the coming-out process. (I'll be insulted if the writer's queer.) Had it not been for the cute chemistry between Cavanaugh and Graham (which, by the way, was understandably forced), I would give it a negative 3 stars.@@@0 -Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version – there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release – since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.@@@1 -The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.

It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian "I am who I am" film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate "her happiness at finding herself" underlines the banality of the last part of the film.

It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.@@@0 -A lush fantasy world with quirky characters and annoying 80's music. This epitomizes the 80's desire to rewrite fairy tales and make fun of how they work. Personally I liked Greensleeves and the other harsher characters. They had some of the more amusing lines.@@@1 -This is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. You should not see this movie but if you insist on wasting your time you should stop here, there are SPOILERS. Gray Matters centers on Gray and Sam Baldwin (Heather Graham and Tom Cavanagh). Only Gray and Sam are Brother and Sister; living together in everyone else's eyes as man and wife. No sex but just about everything else. Early on, the movie starts with its theme: 'the most absurd thing at the most absurd moment with you guessed it the most absurd reactions'. Gray and Sam decided to check out the dog park with a borrowed pooch. Rather then push her brother to get the skinny on first woman they see for him, she does it and gets to the nitty-gritty questions too. When she signals her brother to come over they start a 3-way date. Charlie (Bridget Moynahan) is the girl of THEIR dreams, like all the right things etc… Sam final hits Gray over the head and the couple finishes the date with a marriage proposal! That Charlie accepts! In one week Charlie, Gray and Sam are to be in Vegas. In the next week Charlie and Gray are off shopping for wedding gowns (apparently Charlie has an off-the-rack figure). Gray is slurping an iced latte when Charlie suggests Gray tries on some gowns as well and picks out a $10,000 frock for her. While Charlie is zipping her in this 'down-payment-on-a-house' gown Gray continues to slurp on the latte (I swear it was like a feed bag). What should happen but 'woops!' latte all over the gown. It is never explained how they got out of Bloomingdale's bridal salon with out a $10,000 mocha colored gown. Back to 'reality' – Caesar's palace Las Vegas. They have the 'high roller room' (Sam is a resident surgeon and Charlie is an intern zoologist – were do they get all this money?) Gray kicks Sam out to the single room down the hall so she and Charlie can have a bachelorette drink-a-thon were, you guessed it - they kiss. Gray remembers everything; Charlie remembers nada. They make it to wedding chapel and right when the Reverend gets to his line "If there is anybody is here who has any objection whatsoever to the union of these two lovebirds" Gray gets the hiccups. Gray excuses herself, for some reason the Reverend must repeat his last line and right on queue again 'hiccups'. Gray gets back to NY and starts dating any man she meets, literally. And of course one is you guessed it again! Gay. The other is a jerk and the third is a taxi cab driver (Alan Cummings) named Gordy. He is smittened with Gray but the feelings are not returned. They become great friends. This is good because when she comes clean with Sam about the kiss. He blows up and kicks her out of their apartment. When Sam comes to his senses he goes to her office. Gray works at an ad agency. This office is smack in the middle of the twilight zone. It has cameras and microphones in all the conference rooms that broadcast to all computer monitors at the agency. Sam gets Gray in one of the conference rooms for a not-so-private conversation and ends up outing her to the entire office. This is where I doubt that there was a gay man or lesbian on the crew: Gordy comes to her rescue and convinces her to go to a lesbian bar. 'Sorry no men' says the bouncer. So Gray and Gordy return with Gordy in drag. Bad drag. He was in a sleeveless black satin-like blouse, a string of pearls, and a grandma's church hat. No lesbian would ever confuse this 'man in a dress' as a drag queen much less a woman. The bar was also the straight man's fantasy of what a lesbian bar is: full of Victoria's Secret models. Everything turns out peachy – she goes home with her firm's client. Gray happens to be on the woman's account and finally does more then kiss. For some reason no one tells Charlie anything and she is oblivious through the whole movie of this kiss with Gray, but that is for the sequel.@@@0 -You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.

It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.

@@@1 -I wish I'd known more about this movie when I rented it. I'd put it in my queue on the basis of Heather Graham and her strong cred as an actress (IMHO). While parts of the movie were charming, much of the movie felt contrived, undeveloped, or otherwise just boring or predictable. Not to mention the ICK factor of so many people thinking the sibs were a couple... I don't care how big a part of the story line that is, it still felt a bit, um, gross. And Charlie, for a zoologist, she certainly doesn't seem to be very attuned to signals from other Homo sapiens. What was it about her (besides her hotness and some common interests) that made Gray fall for her? The story could have been so much more interesting with a little more depth. High points - Molly Shannon (although I do agree with the reviewer who found her annoying on occasion), the cabbie in drag, and the dance sequences (if Sam & Gray were such great dancers, I wish we'd seen more of that, as the bits we were shown were indeed better than most of the rest of the movie). Could have been better.@@@0 -This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.@@@1 -I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.

The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.

Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.

Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.@@@0 -One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the "cut-out" method of animation (a la "South Park"), the real talent behind "Twice Upon a Time" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's "Rhoda") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The "accidental nightmare" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed.@@@1 -Sam (Thomas Cavanagh) and Gray (Heather Graham) are devoted siblings who share an apartment and a love of many things -- ballroom dancing, 1940s movie musicals and, much to their surprise, an attractive woman named Charlie (Bridget Moynahan). Historically heterosexual, Gray is confused by her new feelings.

Gray Matters proves to be one of the blandest films I have ever seen. It's dull, predictable, unfunny, poorly acted and poorly written. Nothing about it felt real and everything was very cheesy. Also, this isn't really a romantic comedy with a special twist but more of a "coming out" movie. Sue Kramer tried to make the first half cute with the romantic stuff and the second half serious with the actual acceptance and coming out part. Unfortunately, she failed miserably. The first half was largely unfunny and only Heather Graham was able to hold it up a little. Then, the film took an awkward tone and got all serious. The serious scenes were handled poorly and all of the emotions just felt phony.

I guess I would have enjoyed the film a little more if the relationships between the characters felt more authentic. The brother and sister relationship was very weak and they didn't really appear to be that close. Their relationship just didn't feel very natural. Also, the relationship between Tom and Bridget felt very unnatural. If two people are going to get married after only knowing each other for less than a week, then you would expect to see a little more excitement but the characters talked about getting married in Vegas in the same manner of asking a waiter what the specials are. There was a lack of excitement in the film and it was hard to get involved with the movie with such unmotivated characters.

The acting was mostly weak which was a bit surprising given the decent cast. Heather Graham gave the only good performance in the movie. She was funny and had a few charming scenes but it's too bad that all of her co-stars were complete duds. Bridget Moynahan was very weak and her performance ringed false on every level. Also, it seemed like she was reading her lines. Thomas Cavanagh was pretty wooden and he showed nearly no emotion. The chemistry between Thomas and Heather was non existent and that damaged the film because their relationship felt phony. I can usually rely on Molly Shannon to be funny in a supporting role but here she was just annoying. Sissy Spacek had about two scenes and she was annoying in both of them. Finally, Alan Cumming just had an embarrassing character and his performance wasn't very good. Overall, Gray Matters is a lame film and it isn't worth watching. Rating 3/10@@@0 -Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.

The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience!@@@1 -If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.@@@0 -OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask.@@@1 -It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.@@@0 -I don't watch soaps. My grandmother still watches that one with the hour glass. I made fun of them it when I was ten (it was so easy).

But this movie takes parody and spells it a new way. I found the story pretty damn funny. The fashions of the 80's - shoulder pads, sequins, and polyester - just top it off. The huge hair, the high heels, and the histrionics - what a combination.

And all the actors just go to town, chewing up their parts and spitting them out in a big well scripted pile. Sally, Kevin, Elisabeth - wonderful! Whoopi - great! Robert Downey - refreshing to see him back when he had such potential, before the tabloids. And Garry: why did we have to wait so long to see him on film? Leesa Gibbons - hadn't been missing her, but nice to include her as a real life entertainment reporter (and where do you apply for THAT job, anyway?).

Admittedly, I could have done without Sally climbing the drainpipe. Lucy Ricardo did it, how many times?, as has every comedienne from Carol Burnett to I don't know who and I'm so done with it now, I could spit peanuts if I had them. Apparently it's what you do when you're being funny in a tall building in New York. I'm just thankful they didn't pull out the flagpole bit.

But it was cute, it was funny, it had plot twists, it had an after credits ending before that was common, it had clothes worthy of a second glance, it had a great cast and it's got personal memories for me. Really, what more do you need?@@@1 -Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs!@@@0 -I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.

I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.

Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond "art". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...

Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.

@@@1 -Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they "accidentally" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.

Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.

I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.@@@0 -As a person who sought out an existence as a 'professional' person with income backed by a BS in Chemistry and MS in Business Management, my sanity was always spasmodically sustained in outside indulgences in things more artistic. My post-post graduate classes were always emotionally and spiritually supported by an interest in photography, stained-glass, ceramics, metal forging/welding, and art drawing that also included silk screening.

I also keep healthy with jogging, walking and lately, hiking to remote destinations in California and nearby states like Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Jogging, walking and hiking gets one close to the earth with time to stop and watch and listen and also photograph or record sounds.

Within that background, I was obsessed with RIVERS AND TIDES. I was equally impressed with the documentary content of artist Andy Goldsworthy as well as the skills and smoothness of Director/Cinematographer Thomas Riedelsheimer. I actually could not separate the art of Goldsworthy with camera path of Riedelsheimer.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful.@@@1 -After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse.

The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch.

The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.

Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.

On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice!

If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else.@@@0 -

So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.

The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole.@@@1 -This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Horrible acting,Not funny at all, and well just boring.

I can only assume all these 10 out of 10 fav. all time movie comments are actually the actors themselves in disguise.

Idk what the runtime on this movie is I'm sure its listed on this page It certainly felt like an eternity

If your looking for a tough challenge,attempt to sit through this awful movie.

otherwise

Don't waste your time as I did on this one@@@0 -This film is mesmerizing in its beauty and creativity. An artist's profound vision, his art that springs intuitively from its natural source brings us an inspiring Hosanna, blending his creations with trees, white water dashing against rocks, fields and rain...Andy Goldsworthy makes the viewer feel joy in being alive, aware that we are all made of the clay of this glorious earth. He doesn't spare us his occasional frustration, but on the whole we see the miracle in joining art with nature. Credit also goes of course to the filmmaker, Thomas Riedelsheimer, who directed, photographed and edited the movie with incredible sensibility and perfect timing.

If you have any feeling for beauty, nature and art...do not miss this fantastic film!@@@1 -Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.

There are two laughs in HOT ROD.

1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.

2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.

Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.

Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.

Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.

Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.@@@0 -Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect.@@@1 -SNL is pretty funny but people who say this is like watching a Short skit on SNL is a little dumb minded. It's NOTHING like SNL, it's just a stupid piece of crap.

Andy Samberg tries to act like Jon Heder but fails. Although Jon Heder is only funny in Napoleon Dynamite Andy tries his hardest and people think he's funny.

Only funny people in the movie were Danny McBride and Bill Hader. The only part that was decently funny with Andy was the pool part.

They could have made the "Quiet place" a lot better if they didn't make the falling scene 3 freaking minutes.

The part where he's pronouncing his H's more is retarded. They try going with it too long and half the time it looks like Andy is laughing while he acts...he's a horrible actor and doesn't deserve to be in a movie.

This movie is a joke and is for the simple minded people with the brain of a 10 year old level of comedy. Which is about half the United States.@@@0 -A new way to enjoy Goldsworthy's work, Rivers and Tides allows fans to see his work in motion. Watching Goldsworthy build his pieces, one develops an appreciation for every stone, leaf, and thorn that he uses. Goldsworthy describes how the flow of life, the rivers, and the tides inspires and affects his work. Although, I was happy the film covered the majority of Goldsworthy's pieces (no snowballs), I do feel it was a bit long. The film makers did a wonderful job of bringing Goldsworthy's work to life, and created a beautiful film that was a joy to watch.@@@1 -I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.@@@0 -Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.@@@1 -My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy it.@@@0 -This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends.@@@1 -Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.

The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.

Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.@@@0 -I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb)@@@1 -By no means is this movie as bad as 'Perfect Stranger', but it just wasn't funny. It couldn't stick to one type of comedy - it jumped from SNL, to Adam Sandler-esquire, to romantic, to little guy scores big, to slapstick, to 'Loser' (the movie) types of comedies. Although there were some pretty funny slapstick moments (the fall down the hill), no one was very particularly funny or outstanding in any way. 'Schindler's List' was funnier (and felt shorter). you never knew if Andy Samberg was supposed to be in high school, a college dropout, or just a loser living at home with his mother - Sissy Spacek, in her worst choice of roles. And poor Ian McShane, THE serious actor if I only had to name one, is given crap to read into the camera. The story drags and is completely predictable up to and including the end (no spoilers here in case Adam Samberg's mom wants to see it). Don't spend ANY money going to see this movie, and maybe Lorne Michaels will get the hint and start producing quality (Yes, Wayne's World and Tommy Boy are quality) movies.@@@0 -this has by far been one of the most beautiful portraits of a person that I've ever seen on screen. Andy Goldsworthy is a kind of man that is upon extinction. he views the earth and nature with such admiration and respect that it's primitive in a good sense. his purity, honesty and kindness breathes clearly as you watch him work in such simplistic yet full of life momentary pieces of art. I was amazed how patiently he created his pieces and how patiently he accepted their end. sometimes prematurely, but his Scottish sense of humor covers his disappointments brilliantly. the film is shoot elegantly and contains the same flow that Goldsworthy's art has. it combines nature and art in a minimal way as it is in itself. Fred Frith's score is organic enough that it blends everything together without interfering with it naturalistic sound. this is overall a great piece of work in every aspect. it has no boundaries as far as age goes.@@@1 -When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state – which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes – jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.

The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect… because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit – which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.

The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately – rather, realistically – his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director… or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie – ANY other movie.@@@0 -Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors – Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty – quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course – but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...@@@1 -Recap: Doctor Markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy, knowledge that might unbalance the world. He keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the Soviet Union. KGB on the other side desperately wants the new technology. So, they sets a scheme in motion. During a rescue attempt to free Markov, KGB steps in, takes Markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in Sweden, and working for the UN. As a backup, KGB kidnaps Markov's estranged daughter. CIA now send their best agents, a team of (Swedish?) Ninjas to thwart KGB and rescue Markov and his daughter.

Comments: A cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. The movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. First off is that it is very dark, probably to conceal locations and bad effects, that some scenes are hard to comprehend. You can't see what is happening. The second thing that it is lacking is martial arts, despite being a ninja-movie. Sure there are some, of quite poor quality, but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. The automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. And the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while Soviet guards die like flies.

What does it have that speaks for it then? The idea and ambition foremost. Some actually, and especially for a Swedish movie, decent action-scenes albeit not of martial arts. Some nice slow-motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. And some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. Mostly all parts that you look for in a B-movie.

Because it definitely is a B-movie, no mistake could be made there. But if you expect it, and watch it like a B-movie, it is entertaining. But don't forget, it is not only a B-movie it is set in the eighties. Some girls, for example, besides wearing... lets say "interesting" clothes, have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup.

In all, see for the cult status and the ambition. Enjoy it, and then forget it.

4/10@@@0 -This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre.@@@1 -I got to see an early preview of this movie and I hope they have time to edit it in what ever way they can to improve on it before it comes out Aug 3rd. It stars Andy Samberg from Saturday Night Live as 'Hot' Rod Kimble. He's plays a teenager in a small town who wants to be a stunt man like his late father. When we meet him, he's jumping a mail truck on his mo-ped, yes, a mo-ped, and almost makes it. This would be worthy of a 'Jackass' movie if he wasn't honestly trying to do this. Isla Fisher plays the slightly older and much more mature girl-next-door, Denise. She seems to like Rod enough to join his 'crew'. Jorma Taccone (also SNL) plays his half brother, Kevin, who documents the stunts with a camcorder. Sissy Spacek plays Rod's mom, Marie. She remarried Frank Powell, played by Ian McShane. Frank's a real tough guy who enjoys beating Rod in some real drag out brawls. It's clear that Rod's not going to earn Frank's respect till he can beat him. We find out Frank needs a $50,000. heart transplant and Rod is determined to raise the money just so he 'can beat his ass' once he's healed, and prove himself a man. A long fall down a mountain side convinces Rod to 'go big' on one stunt. Rod sets out to get seed money by charging for doing stunts that would make you cringe if you saw them in real life. Like the human torch- at a children's birthday party. There were those at the showing who managed to laugh at most of the stunts. Just when all hope and money is lost, along comes a sponsor who saves the day by getting the 15 school buses Rod wants to jump. He gets exclusive broadcast rights and sets up phone lines to get donations. Rod gets a new outfit and a real motorcycle. The whole town turns out and the world tunes in. Does he make the jump? Does he get the girl? Do they raise the $50k? Does Frank get his ass beat by Rod? Wait till this 90 minute movie comes out on video to find out.@@@0 -A very engaging documentary about Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy, whose work consists mostly of ephemeral sculptures made from elements from nature. His work is made of rocks, leaves, grass, ice, etc., that gets blown away when the tide arrives at the beach or the wind blows at the field. Thus, most of Goldsworthy's works don't really last, except as photos or films of what they were. Now, one can argue that Goldsworthy's works are a reflection of mortality, or words to that effect, but isn't it easier to say that what he does is just beautiful art. And at a time when the stereotype about artists is that they are mostly bitter, pretentious, often mentally unstable people who live in decrepit urban settings, Goldsworthy seems to be the opposite: a stable, unpretentious, family oriented person who loves nature and lives in a small village in Scotland (of course, I'm sure those are the same reasons why he's shunned by some people on the art world who found his works fluffy or superficial).@@@1 -Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.@@@0 -The Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy fashions natural materials into ephemeral artworks, assembling rocks into egg-shaped cairns, filling riverside rock-pools with fiery flowers and stitching thorns and twigs into intricate web patterns. An original work and a few photographs of his other creations are tucked away in a corner of Southampton art gallery (near where I live), but although I found these pieces intriguing, I only realised the wonder of Goldsworthy's work when I was lucky enough to catch a re-screening of Rivers and Tides.

Thomas Reidelsheimer's film, accompanied by a beautiful instrumental soundtrack by Fred Frith, brings Goldsworthy and his art to life by showing the artist at work. The opening scene captures him fusing icicle fragments into a snake-like thread set atop a tree-stump. Working with his teeth and bare hands, Goldsworthy crafts a beautiful, ephemeral work. Before long this delicate sculpture melts away to nothing in the brilliant Nova Scotian sunlight. This scene is among the most beautiful in the film, but the breadth and inventiveness of Goldsworthy's work is remarkable. Reidelsheimer shows both the successes and the failures, capturing the frustration of pieces that collapse before they are completed as well as the glory of those that shine, even if for just a few hours, minutes or seconds.

Goldsworthy himself provides the narration, speaking slowly but thoughtfully about the themes in his work. He makes plain his need to work with nature, to be alone in it and to further his understanding of it through trying to work with natural materials, even when they seem to be working against him. At times he is down-to-earth and humorous; at other times he struggles for the words to express his purpose – something which is quite understandable when witnessing his astonishing work first hand. The 'Rivers and Tides' of the title become increasingly pertinent as we see the natural materials pass through the artist's hands, flowing from one form to the next. The capture of the creation and dissolution of Goldworthy's work is in itself a striking piece of art.

Although Goldsworthy works with widely varying materials and covers territory across North America and Europe, the presentation of artworks one after the other in this film is exhausting; it gave me the same feeling of fatigue that I get when I spend too long in an art gallery and struggle to take in anything new. A brief interval in which we are introduced to Andy's family and hometown is all that breaks the long succession of his artworks. Nevertheless, Reidelsheimer does a superb job in photographing Goldsworthy and his creations, locating them in their wider environments, from meandering Canadian rivers to rainy Scottish hillsides. Fittingly, the film ends with Goldsworthy casting handfuls of earth and snow into the sky. Fleeting patterns emerge from the dust particles even as they dissipate into the air; this is the purest expression of the beauty to be found in the work of this remarkable artist.@@@1 -If i could have rated this movie by 0 i would have ! I see some ppl at IMDb says that this is the funniest movie of the year , etc etc excuse me ? are you ppl snorting LSD or ........? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about this movie N O T H I N G ! I actually want my 27 minutes back of my life that i spent watching this piece of crap.

I read someone sitting on an airplane watching this movie stopped watching after 30 minutes , i totally understand that , i actually would have watched snakes on a plane for 2 times over instead of watching this movie once !

DO NOT watch this movie , do something else useful with your life do the dishes , walk the dog , hell... anything is better than spending time in front of the TV watching hot rod.@@@0 -The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie!@@@1 -This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!

3/10 just horrible

-adam@@@0 -Being a fan of Andy Goldsworthy's art for a while now, and owning some of his books, I had some expectations of what I would see. What I got was something completely satisfying, and quite a bit more than I expected. Being an artist myself (I work in clay), finding inspiration within our surroundings to make good art is imperative, and it is something Andy Goldsworthy has mastered. Following him over the course of a year, the director captures the spontaneous energy, skill, and devotion to the artists connection with nature with dratic inspiring flair. The music set to the film is embracing and intoxicating. If you are an artist in need of inspiration, or anyone else in need of an uplifting experience, then SEE THIS MOVIE. I for one am glad to know that Andy is somewhere out there. Creating, dancing, wrestling with the forces of nature to make our world more beautiful.@@@1 -So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.@@@0 -This German documentary, in English, is about a Scottish environmental sculptor named Andy Goldsworthy. He makes art from objects he finds in nature. For example, early in the film we see him taking sections of icicles and "gluing" them together with a little moisture into a serpentine shape that seems to repeatedly go through a vertical rock.

Of course, the icicles melt, but that transience is a part of most of Goldsworthy's work. He goes to a site and gets a feeling for it, deciding intuitively what to make that day. He talks of having a "dialog" with the rocks and other materials that he works with, attempting to work *with* rather than against them. It might be stones, or flowers, or leaves, or sticks. The sculpture might last for minutes or years, or might not even last long enough to be completed and photographed. The work seems to be more of a process than a goal.

The film, and the work, is beautiful, inspiring, and thought provoking. It moves pretty slowly, which is appropriate for the material, but you should be sure to go when you have had a good night's sleep. But do go if you have the opportunity.

Search the web for some other pages about Andy Goldsworthy or to read about his local sculpture at Stanford University. There are also several books available with photographs of his sculptures.

My thoughts: Skip reading this part if you want to find what this film means to you completely independently. I recall a couple of ideas that occurred to me while watching the film which I thought I would share for those of you still reading. First, the transitory nature of much of Andy Goldsworthy's work reminded me of the natural ebb and flow of human life. We're born, we live, and eventually we die. That's natural, and that's also naturally a part of Goldsworthy's art.

The other thought was to be awestruck with the way that Goldsworthy has managed to integrate his passion and his work so thoroughly into his life. Most of us have work which is tolerated at best, a life which we hardly notice living, and passions which we really mean to spend more time on, if we even remember what they are. Andy Goldsworthy has managed to create an amalgam of all of these aspects of his life that looks like it works very well, and is nourishing for him and those around him. Wow.

Seen on 8/28/2002.@@@1 -First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...

2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory

2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck

I should have followed my first instinct and turned off "Hot Rod" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.

This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.

I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.@@@0 -Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk.@@@1 -This is one of those movies which makes you think: would Hulk " The real American " Hogan have done the same? Frankly I don't think so and he'd have been right. I'm Italian, I cannot go proud of my country for many reasons, but I wouldn't have rowed for another team (The French, for example), simply because I'm in love with Juliette Binoche. Besides the protagonist doesn't fall in love desire with a British girl at the end of the movie but with a fellow countrywoman, so why rowing against Yale. As far as acting is concerned, well, all the players act very poorly. And then , you know, I hated that "Dead poets society " atmosphere. In fact that's another movie I hate.@@@0 -As the jacket proclaims, this film is "Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited," and, yes, it is mesmerizingly beautiful. The timelessness that we perceive in stoic rock and in the unceasing ebb and flow of water frames the ephemeral works from Goldsworthy's hands so that in their very ephemeralness they point to eternity.

And so the beauty of his compositions haunt us with just a touch of melancholy woven in--or in the words of Matthew Arnold from "Dover Beach":

Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.

At one point near the end of the film Goldsworthy says that "Words do their job, but what I'm doing here says a lot more." As a wordsmith myself I take no offense and not for a moment do I think him immodest because the combination of form and time and change and texture and color and composition that Goldsworthy painstakingly and intuitively creates, is indeed something more than mere words can say.

At another point he remarks on "What is here to stay...and what isn't." That is his theme.

I think that artists sometime in the twentieth century became acutely aware of how ephemeral even the greatest works of art are compared to the vast expanse of cosmic time; and so they began to reflect this understanding by composing works that were deliberately ephemeral. The idea was, that by emphasizing how short-lived are even the mightiest works of humans, a sense of the timelessness of art would be expressed.

Perhaps part of the effectiveness of Goldsworthy's work is in this sort of expression. He painstakingly composes some form of straw or leaves where the tide will reach it, or places it in the river where it will be swept away; and in this process is merged both the composition and its ephemerality.

Both the transitory and the timeless are necessary for us to understand our world and our place within it. And it is important that these works be done within the context of nature so that what is composed is set within what is natural. Thus the walls of stone and the eggs of stone that Goldsworthy constructs are silent and solid yet we know that they are not monuments to eternity, but instead will stay for some undefined length of time and then dissipate and return to a state much like that which existed before we came along.

This is art as art should be, akin to the spiritual.

In a sense Goldsworthy's work is an inarticulated understanding. It is an experience purely of time and form. In a sense his work "answers" Shelley's famous poem "Ozymandias" by saying, even as the tide washes the work away, and even as the river dissipates the expression, even so the art lives on because of our experience of it. Similarly one thinks of Tibetan sand paintings so carefully composed and measured out, and then just as they are so beautifully and preciously finished, they are given to the wind, so that we might know that all is flux.

Yet, in the modern world these works of art endure in photos and videos. Goldsworthy is an accomplished photographer (of necessity I would say) and all his works, even the unsuccessful ones, he tells us, are photographed so that he can look back at them in a more reflective mood and see what he has accomplished and what he has not.

This cinematic production directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer with the beautiful and appropriately haunting music by Fred Frith is not to be missed. It is one of the most beautiful documentaries that I have ever seen and one of the most spiritual.@@@1 -OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.

Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:

I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.

The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.

Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.@@@0 -Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best.@@@1 -I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts.

Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".

It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x@@@0 -On one level, this film can bring out the child in us that just wants to build sandcastles and throw stuff in the air just for the sake of seeing it fall down again. On a deeper level though, it explores a profound desire to reconnect with the land. I thoroughly empathized with the artist when he said, "when I'm not out here (alone) for any length of time, I feel unrooted."

I considered Andy Goldsworthy one of the great contemporary artists. I'm familiar with his works mainly through his coffee-table books and a couple art gallery installations. But to see his work in motion, captured perfectly through Riedelsheimer's lens, was a revelation. Unfrozen in time, Goldsworthy's creations come alive, swirling, flying, dissolving, crumbling, crashing.

And that's precisely what he's all about: Time. The process of creation and destruction. Of emergence and disappearing. Of coming out of the Void and becoming the Universe, and back again. There's a shamanic quality about him, verging on madness. You get the feeling, watching him at work, that his art is a lifeforce for him, that if he didn't do it, he would whither and perish.

Luckily for us, Goldsworthy is able to share his vision through the communication medium of photography. Otherwise, with the exception of a few cairns and walls, they would only exist for one person.@@@1 -Whale-hunters pick on the wrong freaking whale.

A group of yahoo whale exploitists capture a female and string her up by her tail-fin. The whale's mate sees the whole thing including the moment the female's unborn baby slips out and slops onto the deck. 'Captain Nolan' (Richard Harris) could tell that the big male is really mad by the way it stared him down as if to say, "Get out of town before high-tide."

This story of revenge has Harris' presence and Bo's beauty, but not much else. This was Bo's first 'released' film, though her first acting job was four years previous in 'And Once Upon a Love' released in 1981 as 'Fantasies' (directed by John Derek).

P.S. Today, the date of this review (November 20), is Bo Derek's birthday. I hope Bo has a 'whale' of a good time..... get it?..... whale?..... hee-hee.@@@0 -This is a romantic comedy with the emphasis on comedy for a change. As usual the lovers--Sally Field as almost-over-the-hill soap opera queen, Celeste Talbert; and Kevin Kline as marginally employed and marginally talented actor, Jeffrey Anderson--are working at cross purposes, seemingly unaware that they are madly in love, etc. Owing a little to Bette Davis's Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950) and a whole lot to the slapstick theatrical tradition, Sally Field goes over the top towards hilarity as she malaprops her way to love and happiness. Kevin Kline, one of the more underrated leading men of recent years, is also very good and very winning as he manages to be handsome, vulnerable, egotistical and lovable all at the same time.

The misadventures center around Celeste's fear of losing her audience as she has entered her forties, and reach the crisis point with the arrival of her niece, aspiring actress Cori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) who turns out NOT to be her niece, with ensuing plot complications. Cori manages to get a small part in the soap opera as a homeless deaf mute before discovering her true relationship to Celeste (and to Jeffrey Anderson as well)--but never mind.

As a romantic counterpoint or foil to the leads are Robert Downey Jr. (soap opera director, David Barnes) and Cathy Moriarty (Montana and Nurse Nan). David Barnes is oh so hot for her, but she cares only about one thing: getting rid of Celeste so that she might shine more brightly on the set. To this end she gets Barnes to do all sorts of things to wreck Celeste's career, but through happenstance and/or a perverse logic, all his attempts go awry, much to the delight of the viewer.

Whoopie Goldberg plays Rose Schwartz, the show's chief writer and Celeste's alter-ego and confidant while Carrie Fisher has a modest part as the hard-as-nails producer of the show.

I thought this was funnier than the only other spoof of the soap opera world that I have seen (Young Doctors in Love 1982 which burlesqued TV's General Hospital and was pretty good). Soapdish is funnier with a daffy script and plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners and terrific performances by Field, Kline and Downy, Jr. But see this for Sally Field who is outstanding.@@@1 -Not much to say beyond the summary, save that this is an example of J. Edgar's Hoover's constant attention to maintaining a good "PR" profile. They don't make movies this bad very often, especially with the likes of Jimmy Stewart and Vera Miles in the blend. Too bad.

@@@0 -I admit that for the first 20 minutes or so of this film I wasn't entirely sure I was going to sit through the whole thing. Like many other people, I found it pretty boring, and I wasn't entirely looking forward to an hour and a half of watching this guy bite icicles and stick them together. However, if you sit through the creation of his first work long enough to see the finished product, you get an idea of how impressive the rest of the film is. I really think it's sad that so many people found this impossibly boring or a retread of ideas done by other artists.

Rivers and Tides is a quiet study of some of the artwork and methods of Andy Goldsworthy, who makes his art entirely out of things in nature, generally resulting in pieces that will be consumed by nature through the normal process of entropy. It is slow moving and unglamorous, but I think that a lot of the point of the movie is to show that Goldsworthy's art does not need any accompaniment in order for it to be appreciated. I've even heard people complain about how he is always talking throughout the movie, rather than just letting nature and his artwork speak for themselves, which I just think is madness.

On the other hand, lots of people complain about CDs coming with the lyrics written out inside them. A lot of musicians as well think their music should mean whatever the listener wants it to mean without the musician showing the exact lyrics, I guess I'm just the kind of person that believes that I'd like to know what the artist was trying to accomplish with his or her artwork. I can still take it how I want to even if I know what it was meant to do. I can understand not wanting to hear him talk through the movie. He does, after all, lose his train of thought and find himself unable to explain some of his work at more than one occasion, but if you don't want Goldsworthy talk about his art while you're watching the film, feel free to turn the sound off. That's like not reading the lyrics if you don't want to know what a musician is singing and would rather interpret the words yourself.

I think that Andy Goldsworthy's work, which I had no idea existed before I watched this movie, is incredibly impressive, and I'm glad that this film was made in order to showcase it. Indeed, since his work is generally not the kind that can be transported into a studio, photography is the only medium other than film that can express it, and I really appreciated being able to see the work that goes into his art, and the way that only things from nature are used. Whether or not you appreciate certain aspects of how this film is presented, Goldsworthy's work is moving enough to overlook that, because the film is not the star, Goldsworthy's art is. And given the lack of any music or even the smallest special effects and the slow-moving nature of the film, it seems to me that director Thomas Riedelsheimer knows that.@@@1 -Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.@@@0 -Beside the fact, that in all it's awesomeness this movie has risen beyond all my expectations, this masterpiece of cinema history portrait the overuse of crappy filters in it's best! Paul Johansson and Craig Sheffer show a brotherconflict with all there is to it. As usual a woman concieling her true intentions. The end came as surprising as unforssen as the killing of Keith Scott by his older brother.

The scenes in 'wiking land' are just as I remember it from my early time travels. - To be honest my strong passion for trash movies makes this one a must have in my never finished collection.

I recommend this movie to all the people in love with the most awesome brother cast from One Tree Hill.

-Odin-@@@1 -Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining.@@@0 -SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.

They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.

Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.

I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.

Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.

This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone.@@@1 -I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.

While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".

Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.@@@0 -I saw this film at the Rhode Island International Film Festival and was completely blown away. The structure and execution of the film was fantastic...I know it won't, but it really deserves an Oscar nod. Cal and Andre were phenomenal as the two disturbed classmates. Yes, the film is very controversial and I can see a lot of people having a lot of problems with it, as it deals with school shooting and especially makes you identify with the killers. However, despite its harsh and blunt subject matter, Zero Day is SO worth watching. I'm looking forward to it coming out on video so I can buy it - it's very, very good. Very powerful and intense...the end shooting sequence leaves you speechless because it's almost too realistic. Their uncertainty, the "recordings", the footage and panic of the students, totally indescribable. I really hope it gets the attention it deserves. It's done in the same format as The Blair Witch Project, handheld camera, made to appear as a true home video documentary kind of film - but god is it INFINITELY better. Very impressive, hats off to everyone involved. If you've got the chance you really should see it.@@@1 -This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned "nemesis", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies.@@@0 -What is most disturbing about this film is not that school killing sprees like the one depicted actually happen, but that the truth is they are carried out by teenagers like Cal and Andre...normal kids with normal families. By using a hand held camera technique a la Blair Witch, Ben Coccio succeeds in bringing us into the lives of two friends who have some issues with high school, although we aren't ever told exactly what is behind those issues. They seem to be typical -a lot of people hate high school, so what? A part of you just doesn't believe they will ever carry out the very well thought out massacre on Zero Day. The surveillance camera scenes in the school during the shooting are made all the more powerful for that reason. You can't believe it's really happening, and that it's really happened. The hand held camera technique also creates the illusion that this is not a scripted movie, a brilliant idea given the subject matter.@@@1 -While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.@@@0 -This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw "real" feeling of the film that makes it.@@@1 -Without a doubt, this is one of the worst pictures I ever actually paid money to see - the kind of flick you choose out of desperation at the mall cinema during a Christmas holiday when you have missed the start times for anything good but still are dead set on seeing a movie! And that is exactly how I came to see this stink bomb...

At the distance of the better part of three decades I can still smell the rotting fish that constitute this story line. Unbelievable plot - that a killer whale carries a grudge against an individual not of the sea - is laughable. And that's about all, except for a completely out-of-place "love theme" that plays over the finish of a film devoid of a love story. At least Charlotte Rampling is lovely (in a two dimensional role) but Richard Harris just chews up the scenery. He was no Captain Quint (Robert Shaw) and this is no "Jaws". Mercifully, I have put most of it out of mind and when I run across it on television air casts I move on immediately. "Danger, Will Robinson!" See the current t.v. commercial showing a husband and wife whale-watching ("Orca - I love Orca...") - at least it is over in sixty seconds. This flick represents 92 minutes of my life that I will never get back.@@@0 -I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.

In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".

The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.

You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.

The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".

I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.

A+.@@@1 -This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.

The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.

The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.

The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.

The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."@@@0 -This is the best movie I've come across in a long while. Not only is this the best movie of its kind(school shooting)The way Ben Coccio(the director) decided to film it was magnificent. He filmed it using teenage actors who were still attending high school. He filmed it in the actors own rooms and used the actors real parents as their parents in the film. Also the actors were filming too using camcorders making it seem much more like a video diary. It is almost artful.(if that is indeed a word)There are a few slip ups however, for example when Cal calls brads(?) land rover a range rover(or vice versa, It's been awhile since I've seen it)@@@1 -Many have stated that Orca – Killer Whale is a Jaws rip-off. This is not really true, though the enormous commercial success of Jaws undoubtedly made these man .vs. beast stories more attractive propositions for film-makers in the second half of the '70s. Orca – Killer Whale would be better described as a modern-day retread of Moby Dick. It's a story about obsession. On one hand a whale's obsessive quest to avenge the death of its mate; on the other a bounty hunter's obsessive quest to kill the whale before it can claim any more lives. Sadly, Orca- Killer Whale emerges a very disappointing film, its fundamentally interesting ideas somewhat ruined by hammy performances and preposterous plotting.

Shark hunter Nolan (Richard Harris) encounters a marine-life researcher Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) diving off the Atlantic coast of Canada. Their meeting almost ends in disaster when Rachel's team are attacked by a Great White Shark, but a Killer Whale arrives in the nick of time to stop the shark. After this, Nolan becomes increasingly obsessed with capturing a Killer Whale and selling it to an aquarium. But his plans backfire when he accidentally kills a pregnant female of the species while the distraught male looks on. Rachel tells Nolan that a Killer Whale is an incredibly intelligent mammal with a strong memory and feelings just like a human. Worse still, native Umilak (Will Sampson) warns him that the whale will always remember its grief and do everything it can to have revenge. Nolan initially tries to forget about the whole regrettable incident, but the whale causes havoc in the fishing town and the disgruntled locals begin to demand that Nolan puts to sea to track it down and destroy it. Eventually Nolan is forced to pursue the Killer Whale… the hunt leads all the way to the desolate ice floes of the Arctic Ocean, where man and beast play out their final fatal battle against each other.

Two things stand out in this film. One is the haunting score by Ennio Morricone (perhaps the greatest composer of film music of all-time, his talents wasted on various tenth-rate clunkers during the 70s and 80s). The other is the amazing widescreen photography of Ted Moore, which makes the film consistently pleasing to the eye. In every other department, Orca – Killer Whale is a shoddy film that does nothing to enhance the reputation of its talented cast and crew. Harris appears extremely ill throughout the film, his hair bedraggled, black rings around his eyes and skin deathly pale. His performance lacks the usual vitality. Rampling strikes a lot of sexy poses but fails to convince with her long-winded and ill-informed explanations about the ways of whales. The rest of the actors are wasted in brief and undeveloped roles, the most memorable of which sees Bo Derek getting her leg bitten off by the vengeful whale. The plot is total nonsense from start to finish, with such preposterous sequences as the whale deliberately starting a fire in the fishing village that engulfs and destroys the local refinery! Although it's credible to suppose that whales are intelligent creatures with genuine emotions, the idea that a whale could plot revenge against a single human adversary and carry it out so calculatedly is utterly absurd. Orca – Killer Whale is really one for completists of the man .vs. beast cycle from the late 70s. Most will come away from the film shaking their heads in disbelief and grinding their teeth with despair.@@@0 -I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T "go there" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of "why???" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary.@@@1 -I don't know who got the idea that orcas go around killing people and bashing and destroying things for revenge but my god is it absurd. Orcas are most definitely not the cold-blooded killer this movie makes them out to be...its silly. Orcas are extremely intelligent, don't get me wrong, but I highly doubt they know and understand a concept such as revenge. So I have to say all I got out of this movie was the entertainment of how preposterous it was. So I was at least somewhat amused by it. Personally, I'd recommend going and seeing Jaws if you're wanting to see an Animal-Killing-Humans type of movie. But if you're like me and want to laugh at something this far from realism then I'd say go ahead. :D@@@0 -Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.

That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies.@@@1 -ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.@@@0 -This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!!@@@1 -This movie certainly proves, that also the good Americans can do terribly good propaganda. No questions being asked, no comments being made on power abuse or police terror, when James Stewart, solid and convincing as always, solves all the stories from Dillinger to 5th Column more or less singlehandedly. June Allyson as his regular love interest holds up the family values and E.J. Hoover is executive producer.And children or non guilty bystanders are never harmed, when the professionals execute. Not to speak of civil rights, which are never broken or homes, which are never intruded. And if the FBI service would not be enough, Steward also gives his son's life for the country in WW II. Perfectly made, if you wouldn't know better....@@@0 -Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.

That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies.@@@1 -Orca starts as crusty Irish sea captain Nolan (Richard Harris) & his crew are trying to capture a Great White Shark so they can sell it for big bucks, unfortunately when a hapless marine biologist called Ken (Robert Carradine) comes under attack from it the Shark is killed by a Killer Whale, this raises Nolan's interest in Killer Whales & decides he want's to catch one of them instead. However while trying to do so he catches a pregnant female & injuries it to the extent she aborts her unborn foetus on deck which makes a mess & enrages her mate, Nolan orders the Whale be dumped back in the sea which is what happens. The male Killer Whale is annoyed to say the least & kills one of Nolan's crew before they reach the dry land of Newfoundland in Canada, once there the Killer Whale conducts a series of attacks on the town & it's people in an effort to lure Nolan back out to sea for a fight to the death...

Directed by Michael Anderson I thought this blatant rip-off was terrible, I'm sorry but I thought it was just plain ridiculous & utterly dull even at a modest 90 odd minutes. The script by producer Luciano Vincenzoni & Sergio Donati is so stupid I'm lost for words, the fact that it seems to take itself very seriously doesn't help & if I have to listen to Charlotte Rampling go on about how intelligent Killer Whale's are just one more time I'll scream. I'm sorry but I simply don't believe a Killer Whale is intelligent enough to know who any particular boat belongs to & sink it, I don't believe a Killer Whale can cause a huge explosion including knocking an oil lantern from a wall on the opposite side it hits as there is no way on earth it could know it was there, I don't believe a Killer Whale can identify someone's house, know someone is in there & then wreck it on purpose, I don't believe a Killer Whale can move icebergs around in order to trap a boat, I don't believe Killer Whales can physically recognise people & I don't believe it has any revenge instincts or at least none that are as strong as this dumb film makes out. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I mean it's only a film after all but it's a film which is trying to be serious & things just got so ridiculous that I was half expecting the Killer Whale to write a letter to Nolan to tell him his plan & hand (or should that be fin?) deliver it, the thing seemed intelligent enough to do just about anything else. They should have asked it to come up with a cure for the common cold! Seriously, that's a statement that's no more far fetched than anything else in this film. I found the film very boring, totally dull & had awful character's with no on screen presence at all. It goes without saying this is a Jaws (1975) rip-off which doesn't even come close to Spielberg's classic.

Director Anderson is no Spielberg that's for sure, this rubbishy film has absolutely no suspense, scares, tension or atmosphere at all. All the attack scenes are as dull as dishwater & totally forgettable, there's no build up to them & virtually no pay off either as Orca doesn't get to eat a single person. Then there's the scenes which literally had me laughing, the shots of the Killer Whale appearing to cry are pure comedy & the opening scenes of the two Killer Whales I suspect tried to show them as a 'loving' & 'caring' couple but I couldn't help but think that this is the closest we'll ever get to Killer Whale porn, hilarious stuff. The footage of the Killer Whales themselves is bland & boring, instead of footage which matches & enhances the scenes around it it just looks like dreary wildlife documentary footage that has little connection to anything else. Do you get the impression that I don't like this film? Good. Forget about any gore or decent deaths either, there's a brief scene when Bo Derek has her legs bitten off but blink and you'll miss it.

This probably had quite a big budget & it still sucks, there's nothing outstanding about Orca, it's well made I suppose but flat, bland & totally forgettable. The cinematography is quite nice though. The acting is bad, Rampling is awful & the late Harris' Irish accent is embarrassing.

Orca is a lame Jaws rip-off which completely ignores or messes up everything that made Spielberg's film so good, this is one for bad movie lovers everywhere. Definitely not recommended although not quite as bad as Jaws: The Revenge (1987).@@@0 -I am a big fan of cinema verite and saw this movie because I heard how interesting it was. I can honestly say it was very interesting indeed. The two lead actors are awesome, the film isn't ever boring, and the concept behind it (though obviously inspired by the Columbine killings and the home movies of the killers) is really interesting. There are some weaknesses, such as the final 20 minutes which really detracts from the realism seen in the first hour or so and the ending really doesn't make any sense at all. The shaky camera sometimes can be a distraction, but in cinema verite that is a given. But I still think the movie is very well done and the director Ben Coccio deserves some credit.@@@1 -Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.

The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.

As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.

The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).

Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.

My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)@@@0 -As a fan of looking further into the phenomenon that is school shootings, this film took an interesting and different approach to the idea. Presented as a series of video recordings made by the two troubled men (I cannot refer to persons who kill as boys or teens), the months of preparation leading to zero day (the codename for the day on which they will attack) the film tries to present the situation from the opposite end of the gun. It seems intent on portraying the pain they suffer, yet focuses on the literal preparation. The problem is that little in terms of emotion is directly delivered. The only point at which emotion became overwhelming was the ending, as expected. But leading up to this point, it's never really clear as to why they are planning this out. We are told the obligatory story that they were mocked, but the film also seems to contradict this. Without ruining the film, it's easy to say it was a great attempt and had equally great intentions, but falls short because of sloppy film-making. All directing is amateur, to further the homemade video concept, but the story and continuity is weak. The film seems to want the audience to decide a lot, but also fails to provide the information for such an event. The ending is abrupt, and doesn't feel like it finishes everything that the film began.@@@1 -Everything about this film was terrible. To start with this film had a pretty good cast and I find it impossible to make such a great cast into the biggest disaster to the gangster film genre ever. The sound track was like one of a very bad slap stick comedy. It had this music through the whole film and it started to get quite irritating.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOURSELF WITH THIS DISASTER YOU WILL ONLY BE HURT@@@0 -Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.

When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.

The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.

It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.

I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened.@@@1 -Definitely not worth the rental, but if you catch it on cable, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the cameos--Iman's appearance is especially self-deprecating. It's also an opportunity to watch all the male supporting cast members from The Sopranos typecast themselves.@@@0 -This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.

Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career.@@@1 -This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.

Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.

There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10@@@0 -Zero day has a purpose and this is not simply entertainment, it delivers a message about its specialised subject school shootings. Charting the lives of two friends Andre and Cal leading up to an attack on their high school.

Whilst the movie started in somewhat unassuming fashion, an impromptu announcement of the coming attack in amateurish teenage style followed by some brief encounters with the boys families. It is not long before we are down to business with the boys showing us their collection of guns, their fetishistic love of them, their sprawling sporadic narcissistic fantasies and even in a controversial scene how to build pipe bombs.

So what is the movie trying to say? What is really motivating these soon to be killers. It seems hard to really pinpoint. They certainly do not come across as cold blooded psychopaths yet they are planning an act of sheer brutality. This brings me to what I feel is the genius in part of Zero day. Cal and Andre talk constantly about how much they are on a different level, how above the rest of us they are and how they will 'leave us all behind.' Like the columbine killers they truly feel superior. Like Nietzsche's res sentiment Cal and Andre's value system seems to have been born out of rejection from their society. Yet we are given only glimpses of this, an expression of hatred for a popular athlete for example. So where is the motivation? What I feel is that Coccio portrayed two individuals desperate to make a statement of superiority a gesture of their power yet who have no reasonable venue for it. Hence they turn to mass murder and the kind of which that will garner them more attention than they could ever realise. This is why in part school shooters seem able to carry out atrocious acts despite coming from good stable loving homes. The murder is part of a fantasy, Cal and Andre are totally lost in their fantasy they almost fail to see the reality of their actions. They turn fantasy into tragedy.

What is secondly most enthralling about this film is the character development and the unique dependence Cal and Andre have on each other. Andre is throughout the film overtly the leader of the two, Cal's embrace of his demeanour and attire seem somewhat forced. Andre is uptight, Andre is intense and serious. He completely shuns others except for his family, he is meticulous and precise about everything he does and for a while appears the prime mover in the plot to attack the school. Yet he is likable in his own way, he does not embrace teenage nonsense and in part we feel compelled to agree with him, yet these moments are shattered by Andre's fleeting gestures of violence towards us the audience treating us as both confidante and potential victim. Cal on the other hand seems more relaxed than Andre, more accepting of reality. Yet he is in his own way dominant. We have many personal moments of introspection with Cal's video diary, scenes when he is alone and apart from Andre. Cal seems to be struggling with his own personal demons and using their plan to exorcise himself of them. Andre is jealous of Cal going to the prom with an old friend, he wants Cal all to himself. Cal placates Andre and encourages him. For the first time in his life Andre seems to have found someone who believes in him and who admires him he cannot lose it. Whilst Cal has found someone offering him a way out.

The movie certainly picks up pace and improves as it nears its grim conclusion. There is an excellent moment when Cal attends the high school prom. Suddenly the star of the movie becomes shy and introverted, not at all at ease with his peers. Yet we are inclined to feel more connection with Cal than with the raucous bawdy crowd screaming juvenile obscenities whilst drinking heavily in their limo. Theirs is an episode all too common and recognisable. We do not want to relate to them, when it is over and Cal is back with Andre silently preparing one of their final videos we like the characters feel once again at ease safe in the fantasy world they created. We feel like shunning the masses as they have.

The penultimate scene is superb. The final video sees Andre and Cal arming themselves in their car just moments before attacking. It is all too real and truly creates a sense of impending doom. By know we know Cal and Andre and are realising they are about to actually do it, with a kind of morbid fascination we are also relishing the films catharsis.

The massacre shot in CCTV fashion is at times shocking, and whilst it was certainly the perfect choice to depict the massacre if we were going to it is not void of flaws. What is most significant is the sudden radical change of perception we have of Cal and Andre, looking at them in the this person suddenly they are the callous killers we knew they would become yet refused to acknowledge that they would. It is violent and real, our heroes have become monsters and the reality of their fantasy is a terrible tragedy, which costs them everything.

The final scene shows a group of teens filming themselves burning the crosses erected for Andre and cal in disgust that they have been memorialised. Having known Andre and Cal we can only feel almost a sadness that they are actually gone forever and that they certainly did not win anything.

Zero day is a must see for anyone interested in these violent acts sensationalised by the media. It is a character study well worth experiencing.@@@1 -A movie that makes you want to throw yourself on a sword. I've seen schlock in my time but after viewing the wretched mess I don't think I can ever watch a another movie again. May God pity the souls who made this.

Premise- Ex-Army quiet stud, underwear model type character (well acted actually) goes looking for the girl who sent him a Xmas card while serving in the military. Lands in with her cabin living-granola type family who are right-wing loggers. Family takes to him and it takes 2 hours of our time for the chick to see he's a better catch than her liberal looking ,french wine drinking, porsche driving, loud cell phone talking, lazy, city slicking, Jewish looking fiancé.

The Bad- 1d characters, 1d themes. Being beat over the head with the Pro-Military theme. Ed Asner.

The Good- commercial breaks were long. Peter Jason. It ended.@@@0 -zero day is based of columbine high school massacre. and its a video diary of two boys. at first you don't know whats going to happen you think it is just a bad student film. until they start talking about the horrible things they are going to do in this quite school. until they start talking about pipe bombs and guns and going shooting in the woods. they is a lot to say about this movie. all know this film is well a film you forget you watching a film and watching a real video two boys made.

the two boys act like they are in a weird cult. they burn all there stuff. like play station games books dvds homework stuff school stuff. these two boys can be anybody your friends you brothers or the people you see walking down the street. it goes through there daily actives (and that is making a gun. in the videos they make it mentions the bullying that happens to them and how people said stuff about there clothes and the things you are into I'm not saying its right but many people do do things like that.

and also the thing is with this people are suspected to like it because of the sensitive topic they have chosen on this film.

so thats my review on zero day.

and lets just say the end shooting scene is messed up.@@@1 -I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.

The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a "love triangle" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.

Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong

Things I don't like: There is a very typical "love triangle" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language

Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone.@@@0 -In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.

It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.

It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.

This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.

The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.

I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.

If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless.@@@1 -Sorry my fellow Nevada City neighbors, but this one is bad.

Brian must have had too much botox because he had very little facial expressions through out the entire movie.

Alice looked like she had a board strapped to her backside. She was stiff throughout the movie.

I looked up both Alice and Brian and was surprised to see the extensive bio of work. I would have guessed that they were first-year students.

Ed Asner and Peter Jason carried the movie frankly with their banter and ease with every line. Ed certainly has not lost his charisma. I wish I'd taken the time to meet him while he was here.

I love the snow scenes and scenes of stores and the church because I've been there. I make Nevada City my home and was anxiously awaiting the premiere. I was sadly disappointed.

Sorry.@@@0 -Chris and Andre are two average, ordinary teens. Misunderstood by some and picked on by others. But together they stand and all will pay. Together they form "The Army of Two". They scheme and plan "Zero Day". That day is when they decide to storm their high school and inevitably murder 14 people in cold blood. Told through the tapes that they made "Zero Day", it is barely a fictionalized telling of the Columbine tragedy.

"Zero Day" is one of those movies that will mess with your head afterwards. The two main actors (Calvin Robertson and Andre Keuck) do such a good job that their characters seem like almost any disenfranchised teen walking the street. Their performances were very believable, you kinda liked these guys and that was scary. Shot on video almost totally from the teen's perspectives "Zero Day" feels very real and authentic, like you are right there. These kids try to rationalize their actions to the viewer and the actors sell it to you. But be warned it does follow the tragedy from beginning to end and the ending makes be shocking and uneasy for some.@@@1 -I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliché' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.@@@0 -This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.@@@1 -This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.@@@0 -Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.

A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.

Do not pass this movie by!@@@1 -This film is to the F.B.I.'s history as Knott's Berry Farm is to the old west. Shamelessly sanitized version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fight against crime. Hoover's heavy hand (did he have any other kind?) shows throughout with teevee quality script-reading actors, cheesy sets, cheap sound effects and lighting 101. With Jimmy Stewart at 20% of dramatic capacity, Vera Miles chewing the scenery, the film features every c-lister known in the mid-fifties with nary a hint of irony or humor, from the 'Amazon jungle' to the 'back yard barbecue', everything reeks of sound stages and back lots. Even the gunshots are canned and familiar. I imagine Mervyn Leroy got drunk every night. Except for a few (very few) interesting exterior establishing shots, nothing here of note beyond a curio.@@@0 -Cutting to the chase: This is one of the most amazing, most intense film I've seen in a long time. The first movie in years that left me absolutely staggered. I could barely feel my way out of the theatre, I was so overwhelmed.

I've been staring at the screen for about fifteen minutes trying to find some way to describe the power of this film, and just failing. Highlighting any one aspect of it -- the documentary-style video diary format, the unflinching portrayal of the events, the force of the characters -- just seems to trivialise it all. Some may find it laughable that any killer could be characterised as normal. But then not all killers are raving lunatics foaming at the mouth. Many are quite regular, unassuming people. They're just wired differently.

And that's perhaps the most chilling thought of all.@@@1 -Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.

I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.

the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.

Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.

So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.

I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.

The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.@@@0 -High school friends Andre Kriegman and Cal Gabriel declare war on their classmates and plan a terrifying assault on their high school. As they begin the deadly countdown to their final act of revenge, the two start a video diary to explain their feelings and chronicle their mission.

There is another similar movie like this, called "Elephant." Why do I bring this up? To compare the two films, of course. I have to say, even though I liked "Elephant," this is a much better film. What's the difference, you ask? Well, for starters, this is shot differently, much along the lines of "Cloverfield," "Blair Witch Project," and "Diary of the Dead." This makes the movie all the better because it's much more painfully realistic.

But what won me over was how the movie was willing to show the "other side of the story." You get to know these two shooters, unlike "Elephant." I actually cared for one of the shooters and could understand their actions and why they did what they did. This movie actually makes you feel sympathetic to these people and that's a good thing because it's not always black and white.

To be honest, this is why I almost cried in this movie. The characters are real human beings with logic and reasons behind their actions. You get to understand them. It's not like they want to kill people for attention. Overall, this film is emotionally gripping and very haunting and much better than "Elephant."@@@1 -If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?@@@0 -This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic.@@@1 -It, at all, you have seen when harry met sally, then avoid this one. It will not only make you bang your head on the table as why can't bollywood even make a good remake; but also annoy you with the so called funny moments in it. The charm of the movie is missing. Ranee looks terrible. Saif tries to act like he is one hell of an actor. The plots that have been picked up from the original, don't look effective either. The part where both of them bring their friends along and they hit a note, it just doesn't look appealing. What can be more disastrous? you wanna waste some money, this is what you can get. Otherwise, put some more bucks, and watch the original. Its too good to miss..@@@0 -The thing that makes this movie so scary is the way that it portrays Andre and Calvin as (relatively) normal guys. These are definitely not people who want to become professional filmmakers since they goof around in front of the camera, forget scripted lines, etc. They are only making the video as a diary to show 'the survivors' how normal their lives were. Their parents just think the guys are filming for a family home video. By researching other kids attacks on their schools, Andre and Calvin learn what not to do and they inform (usually in a silly 'This Old House' kind of way) any potential 'Andres and Calvins' who might be watching this video how to make bombs, get weapons, and not get caught before Zero Day (the day of the attack).@@@1 -I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it.@@@0 -I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.

Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.

The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.

I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts.

It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids.

Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.@@@1 -Is it just me or is that kid really annoying?

Hideos sister, spends most of her time running around after the disobedient little so and so. As for him, well, I know he's a kid n all, but his acting ability is about as wooden as a dead tree. So far I'm only half way through, and am fascinated by the story, but the people in it, let it down, I just hope it gets better by the end, as I can't not know what it's all about. Although, some supposedly cryptic messages in the scribbles on the wall and a notebook, indicate everything is backwards, i.e. Dog is God, Live is Evil etc... just seems a little obvious at the moment, yet nobody mentions its obvious meaning, (As yet anyway) If my opinion changes at the end of the movie, I'll update this post, but if your reading this, then well...... See above statement.@@@0 -Zero Day leads you to think, even re-think why two boys/young men would do what they did - commit mutual suicide via slaughtering their classmates. It captures what must be beyond a bizarre mode of being for two humans who have decided to withdraw from common civility in order to define their own/mutual world via coupled destruction.

It is not a perfect movie but given what money/time the filmmaker and actors had - it is a remarkable product. In terms of explaining the motives and actions of the two young suicide/murderers it is better than 'Elephant' - in terms of being a film that gets under our 'rationalistic' skin it is a far, far better film than almost anything you are likely to see.

Flawed but honest with a terrible honesty.@@@1 -Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.

There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.

Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.

Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.

What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.

The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.@@@0 -Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves.@@@1 -Because some people, like me, like to know EVERYTHING about a movie even if they plan to see it, including the ending. Anyway, here's the ending as I remember it, because I couldn't have been more than 8 yrs old when I saw it for the first and only time on TV. But I'll tell ya, it sure scared the little kid that I was, and I thought about it for days afterward, and it still stands out in my mind to this day, even though some of the details are a little vague. Abe Vigoda was in this movie? I don't remember that! I didn't even remember that ol' Barnabus was in this movie, and I LOVED Dark Shadows. So, at the end, the lead character (Belinda Montgomery?) is lured by the Judge (Joseph Cotton, I'm guessing, even though I remember it as him being an old family physician or something instead of a judge; see how memory fades?) to the wedding place, which as I remember it is in a cavern of some kind? Maybe I've got that wrong; and Shelley Winters is there laughing, and the Judge has a cape on, and the camera angle is kind of looking up at him, and he throws back the cloak, and he has goat legs, and he announces he's actually her father, the Devil, and she's played right into their (the satanic cult's) hands, because the "mortal" guy she has fallen in love with (I guess that's Robert Foxworth) turns out also to be the guy Satan wants to marry her off to, The Demon with Yellow Eyes, and yep, sure enough, they show Robert Foxworth, and his eyes glow yellow. There are a lot of close-ups in the last few minutes of the film. Everyone is laughing and rejoicing, except for Belinda Montgomery, who is very unhappy, and cries or screams or something, and that's the end. The bad guys win.@@@0 -As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.

The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)

The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it.

The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.

All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.@@@1 -The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.

Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.

The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.

Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.

Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.

Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.@@@0 -I rented Zero Day from the local video store last week. I had never heard of the film and I had my reservations about it. Just from looking at the box I knew the film was an Indie film and therefore the quality was going to be less than a mainstream film.

I can tell you that after I finished watching Zero Day I immediately started it from the beginning again. The film was clearly following the basic outline of what happened at Columbine High School of April of 1999, but what struck me was how believable the two lead actors were. My first time through watching this film I wasn't entirely sure if what I was watching were actual tapes left behind by the shooters at Columbine. In the back of my mind I knew what I was watching could not be real but at the same time the acting was so convincing you had to keep giving your head a shake.

Is the film disturbing? Absolutely! Are you going to see things that will make you question the merit of the film? Probably. I think what most people will find disturbing is they will actually have feelings for the two lead characters, Calvin and Andre (Played by Cal Robertson and Andre Keuck). Why is that problematic for some people? Calvin and Andre are planning a massacre at their high school. I know for myself, I felt an immense sadness for Andre and Calvin. I had empathy for them because their lives had come to such a horrific point. They had fallen so deeply through cracks that they had begun a journey down a road which could have been stopped, if only people around them had taken notice to their plight.

Zero Day is a phenomenal film. It gives you an up close and personal look to events that most of us will only ever see the conclusion to on the news. It leaves you thinking about the lives involved. And it leaves you perplexed how people get to this point. A week after seeing this film, I still think about it.

Those of you who have not seen Zero Day please keep in mind the following: The film is an independent with little to no budget and the film is shot on camcorders. The material in the film is disturbing. This is not mainstream Hollywood and there is no happy ending.

But if you can put all that aside, Zero Day is a film that will stick with you and just maybe help you to open your eyes a little.@@@1 -It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.

In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.

The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about "girl" stuff.

If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.

They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.

If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe.@@@0 -If you're looking for a Hollywood action packed kid-flick with the common bad language and violence this may not be the film to sit down for. If you're on the other hand interested in watching a film with youre children that has actually some values like showing the importance of friendship and truth this is the film to watch. Looking at the program guide this is obviously what millions of other viewers have found. Not many low-budget independent films have ever been aired as much as Mr. Atlas. The film is actually very funny as well as warm hearted and shows some beautiful locations masterfully captured by the sharp eye of the obvious brilliant cinematographer Suki Medencevic. Also if you're interested in looking at a muscular fellow with good looks the ladies can get an eye full. Let's support those who make good childrens film buy buying their videos and watching their products on TV. Enjoy@@@1 -In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).

It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.

However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.

I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.

One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.@@@0 -This is one of those movies - like Dave, American Dreamer and Local Hero - that holds a viewer's interest time and again. Lightweight movies seldom win Oscars, but whoever did the casting for Soapdish deserves one. Even after one has seen the movie and knows what is coming, it's still enjoyable to watch how the various plot facets develop. True, all the drama is melodrama; but that's entirely fitting for a movie with a soap opera background. My favorite line comes from Whoopi Goldberg: "Now why can't I write sh*t like that?" I think it's unfortunate that the TV and website censors insist on all this unnecessary sanitation.@@@1 -Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -i watched this film many years ago and have searched for it ever since in my opinion although very raw it is very educational as to what the future can hold i enjoyed the movie and to this this day rate it very high sorry to all those that disagree but a movie should always be judged each to there own and in my opinion its great give it a go with all the cloning and test tube babies that are happening today who are we to judge this film, this may be a dramatised event of what is to become but there you go. All the horrors of today are so far fetched even i laugh but this one gets me thinking and it scares me as a mother what if i was desperate,after watching this movie i would think twice sorry but i love the movie make your own mind up don't watch the movie making- just aknowledge the story and ask yourself this how far would you go for a child?@@@1 -I have to agree with most everyone's opinion that this show was poorly produced as well as written.The acting was not much more above the lower production values however I feel an actor can only rely on the material provided to them and make the best of it. In keeping with this thought I feel it is important to point out that one actor has risen and persevered well beyond this campy to tasteless production to have become a respectable and quite talented performer.I am referring to Laura Harris a Canadian born actor who has etched her way through many poorly produced shows and movies to find a place on the HBO hit "Dead Like Me" where she plays the role of Daisy Adair and to her credit she handles this role in an efficient manner.I remember having a typical boyhood crush on the young actress during this series where she played Ashley a soft spoken yet intelligent 7th grader.I felt as though if anyone might "make it" from this series it surely would be Laura Harris and true to her nature she did excel in the acting field to win the respect of many producers who now recognize her for her talent as well as unique Nordic blond allure. If you ever do have the opportunity to view this series I recommend that you have something epic to watch after wards such as the 'Godfather' or perhaps 'Beaches' in order to remind yourself that there is after all a great deal of true production integrity and value out there and that this series is only a low-budget reminder of what Laura Harris can simply state about her time on the show and I bet she would quote many a young actors words of defense by saying "It's a start!"@@@0 -The Unborn is a very, very different film. James Karen & Brooke Adams are in the film and they performed quite well. this film is builds up solidly and it keeps you going. Though I think you must be a horror fan to watch this because of the scenes and the plot. There is one brief sex scene with no nudity that could have been left out and to some people this scene may disappoint someone like Me that's into the film and thinks that stuff ruins a good film but that's it when it comes to that. There is a scene where Adams' character goes nuts and kills a cat but you can tell its not real. The music is very different but very good. The Unborn in My opinion is a really creepy film that's superbly unpredictable and that's quite strange! I recommend all horror fans to this movie!@@@1 -This is a fascinating film--especially to old movie buffs and historians (I am both). During the first half of the twentieth century, sadly, Black Americans were usually not allowed into White theaters. As a result, theaters catering to Black audiences wanted to show films reflecting the Black experience and showing Black actors. In many cases, the films were essentially similar plot-wise to standard Hollywood fare, but with a much, much lower budget--and usually horrid production values. You really can't fault the film makers--they just didn't have the money and resources available to the average film company. As a result, they had to make due with a lot less--including an over-reliance on stock actors that were seen again and again, no money for re-shooting scenes and a need to get the films done FAST! This film tried very hard to be a Black version of a Gene Autry film--starring Herb Jeffries instead. Jeffries was a light-skinned man from mixed ancestry and he starred in several similar cowboy films. In each, he sings a little, fights a little (though VERY poorly) and loves a little--everything you need in a cowboy. Believe it or not, Jeffries is STILL alive at age 96.

The general plot was indiscernible from an Autry picture--complete with anachronistic items such as telephones out West! The problem is that despite its similarities, the low budget shines through. Stymie (from the Li'l Rascals) flubbed a few lines but they just left it in, the fight scenes were totally unchoreographed and were among the worst ever put on film, there were some odd plot holes, there was no background music (leaving the film strangely quiet) and the acting was pretty awful.

Now this does NOT mean that the film isn't worth seeing--only that it abouts with technical problems that prevent it from being scored higher. One reviewer, oddly, scored this film a 10! How this can be with all the problems is beyond me. However, I can understand a person liking the film despite its many problems. The plot is generally pretty good, the characters likable, the musical numbers excellent and you know that the people making the film tried so darn hard AND it's a very important piece of American history. But a 10!?

By the way, in an odd bit of casting, the very tall, lean and almost white-skinned Jefferies is paired with short, dumpy and exceptionally dark Mantan Moreland....as his brother!! Also, Spencer Williams may be familiar to you. He played Andy on TV's "Amos 'n Andy".@@@0 -The Unborn tells the tale of a married couple named Virginia (Brooke Adames) & Bradley Marshall (Jeff Hayenga) who have tried for the last five years to conceive, Virginia has had two miscarriages since then & is desperate to have a child. They visit Dr. Richard Meyerling (James Karen) for help after he is recommended by some of their friends, Dr. Meyerling says he will be able to help them have a child. Dr. Meyerling operates on Virginia & it is soon confirmed that the surgery has been a success & Virginia is pregnant. At first everything seems perfect & the Marshall's couldn't be happier, but their picture perfect lives don't last for long as Virginia's pregnancy develops problems, she becomes moody & acts totally out of character & she receives a worrying phone call from Beth (Jane Cameron), another woman who has undergone Dr. Meyerling's procedure, who claims that Meyerling is in fact using his patients for his own sinister ends & is in fact a disgraced genetic researcher. Virginia begins to question just what is growing inside of her...

Produced & directed by Rodman Flender I actually thought The Unborn was a decent horror/thriller (it's DEFINITELY NOT a sci-fi film as the IMDb would have you believe) that pleasantly surprised me. The script by Henry Dominic tries to be different & it must take some credit for that at least. The Unborn goes for psychological horror rather than cheap scares & bad special effects, it's got quite a clever story that works & plays on basic human fears. It moves along at a fair pace although it's not exactly an action packed film by any means. The climax was good & seemed a fitting way to round things off & the warnings about messing around with genetics seem even more relevant today than it must have been back then, maybe Flender knew something the rest of us didn't. On the down side it lacks some exploitation elements & is at heart a dialogue driven film mostly focusing on one person so it can get a bit dull at times. Also, I have to mention it, what on Erath was that grinning black skateboarding dwarf all about eh?!

Director Flender does an OK job, The Unborn is far from the most stylish or visually interesting film ever made but it's good enough. The atmosphere is good & there's a fair bit of tension as what Virginia has inside of her & Dr. Meyerling's sinister plans aren't fully revealed until the last possible moment. Disappointingly the blood & gore is almost non existent which in a way lets the film down because in retrospect nothing really memorable happens, The Unborn relies on good storytelling which is fine but in a week I doubt I'll remember too much about it.

Technically the film is OK, I'd imagine that The Unborn had a pretty low budget but it's well made even if it's a little bland & forgettable. The baby creature is actually a decent special effect & has fairly realistic facial movement. The acting is good & this was one of the first acting jobs credited to Friends (1994 - 2004) star Lisa Kudrow, I have to be honest I don't like Friends & I don't even know who she was in this so I can't tell you how she did.

The Unborn is a good horror/thriller that deserves to be more widely known & seen, it's far better than a lot of low budget crap that litter video shop shelves. If your a horror fan & are looking for something a bit different, something slightly more intelligent & thought provoking than usual then I think you could do a lot worse than The Unborn. Followed by a dumbed down sequel The Unborn II (1994) which I watched straight after this, check my review out if you want..@@@1 -How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!@@@0 -The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always.@@@1 -Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.

The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.

But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.

I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.@@@0 -The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.

On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars.@@@1 -Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.

This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.

This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.@@@0 -We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.

The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back.@@@1 -This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...

Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.

If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.@@@0 -Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.

It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.

For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible.@@@1 -an acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of "workers", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of "stars" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only.@@@0 -This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.

It's a document.

It's mind-blowing.

I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)

NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.@@@1 -This warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.

The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.

The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.@@@0 -"Kolchak: the Night Stalker" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead?

That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.

I'll address the question of Kolchak being "formula" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.

In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.

You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.

The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include:

Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.

The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the "Omen" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.)

Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.

Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!)

On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on "Buffy." McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone.@@@1 -Gadar is an example of one of Bollywood worst overrated movies ever. Directed by Anil Sharma, who prefers making period related movie gives a rubbish movie. The songs were boring and ain't the kind of song you want to listen to in your car, full volume. Sunny Deol is famous for making daft movies, where he beats up a 100 bad guys on his own. He even kicks a metal jail door (Indian) and kicks a moving car far away (Teesri Aankh). I can give another 50 examples of disgraceful action by Sunny Deol. But I'm sure most people know this already. Sunny gives a pathetic performance once again repeating the same type of role. A guy claiming to be fighting for his countries piece, by using violence. Amisha Patel is hands down dead sexy with an amazing body that i would love to bone. But even she couldn't save the film from being a disaster. Instead of wearing sexy clothes like she usually does, in this movie she doesn't. Maybe cos she was playing a Muslim, but she doesn't act like one in the movie. Overall, this is a poor show all the way, I'm sure it will appeal to some people, who love seeing the Bollywood actor beat up 100 guys. Give me a break.@@@0 -Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series "X-Files"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).

Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book!@@@1 -Gadar is a really dumb movie because it tells a fake story.It's too unrealistic and is a typical sunny deol movie that is aimed to bash Pakistan.The movie's aim is to misguide the viewers so they can think that Pakistan and it's government is bad but trying to hide their own flaws won't work.And all the songs and music of the movie are all bad.Most likely the Sikhs will love th movie cause they are being misguided.The movie sucks and sucks with power. I think only Amisha Patel was good in the movie. If i can give 0 out of 10 I would but the lowest is 1.Please save 3 hours of your life and do not watch this stupid boring movie .Disaster.@@@0 -Fast paced and funny satire about that original "reality TV", the soap opera. The script by playwright Robert Harling is packed with one liners and ridiculous situations. The best of them is the climax, a live broadcast that quickly deteriorates into bad improv and a brain transplant. Keven Kline's murdering of his lines, due to not wearing his glasses, is hilarious. "Her brain will laterally explore within the next few houses." The brilliant cast is on the same page as Kline. Sally Field, Elizabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, Garry Marshall, and Kathy Najimy are all perfect. It is a treat to see a cast click like it does in this movie. This is a classic that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

P.S. The score by Alan Silvestri is an added bonus. It fits the soap opera with it's flamboyant and melodramatic air.@@@1 -THE FBI STORY (1959) was Warner Bros. 149 minute epic tribute to the famous criminal investigation agency! From a book by Don Whitehead came a somewhat laborious screenplay by Richard L. Green and John Twist and was directed with only a modicum of flair by Mervyn LeRoy. However it did have splendid colour Cinematography by Joseph Biroc and a helpful score by the studio's musical magician Max Steiner!

The movie charts the history of the Bureau from its lowly beginnings in the twenties to modern times and its all seen through the recollections of aging fastidious agent Chip Hardesty (James Stewart) as he relates his investigative experiences - in flashback - to a class of budding young agents. But it's all very long-winded and episodic! And as it progresses it begins to look like a TV mini series instead of a major movie production as the young Hardesty runs the American crime gamut from taking on such notorious criminal figures as "Baby Face" Nelson, Ma Barker, Dillinger etc. to sorting out nefarious organisations like the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi spy rings and the Red Menace. And here it has to be said that only for the screen presence and appeal of its star THE FBI STORY would probably have ended up a forgotten disaster. Moreover, this is another problem with the picture - Stewart is left to carry the entire movie almost on his own! With the exception of Vera Miles - who has the thankless role of being his long suffering but devoted wife - he is surrounded by a cast of minor players! Throughout you find yourself half expecting someone like Robert Ryan, Jack Palance or even Raymond Burr to make a welcome entrance as a mobster or a police chief or whatever. But nothing quite as imaginative as that ever occurs! Pity!

The film does however manage to give a good look inside the workings of the Bureau! With the help of Stewart's narration we learn about the thousands of men and women who work for the organisation which includes the hundreds of agents in the field. And we are also treated to a peek inside headquarters which houses the gigantic records section and we also get a glimpse of the chemists and fingerprint experts meticulously going through their daily chores.

Another plus for the movie is Max Steiner's remarkable score! Heard over the titles is a powerful, rousing and determined march while for the picture's gentler moments there is an attractive love theme. But quite ingenious is the menacing and ominous march theme for the Ku Klux Klan sequence. And better still is the rhythmic Latin-American music the composer wrote for the South American scenes especially the exciting Fandango like orchestrations for the arrival of the Federal troops on horseback. THE FBI STORY was one of five scores the composer wrote in 1959 which included Samuel Bronston's naval epic "John Paul Jones", the charming Rom-com "Cash McCall", Delmer Daves' seminal western "The Hanging Tree" and Daves' "A Summer Place" from which derived the Young Love Theme - which was to become a major hit tune for Steiner better known as "Theme From A Summer Place".

THE FBI STORY just about passes muster as a movie thanks to Biroc's rich colour Cinematography, Steiner's wonderful music and of course Jimmie Stewart who makes anything watchable!

Classic but implausible line from THE FBI STORY............. As the bland Nick Adams (who has just blown up a plane with 43 people on board, including his mother) is being led away handcuffed he turns to the arresting officer and blurts: "In case I get any mail you can send it to Canyon City prison for the next month or so - after that you can send it to HELL". Wow!@@@0 -As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me.@@@1 -Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.@@@0 -If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker.@@@1 -This move is slow, plodding, cold, dark, and without a plot or hope. It follows that tried and true European formula that they love to subsidize, that is never seen, but that the critics think makes an "important point".

The movie is valuable if nothing more than to show the huge difference in the thinking between Americans and Europeans regarding employment. In this movie the men are still nursing their wounds from years ago and feel it's the government's duty to provide them with work. Whereas in the U.S. we know we have to go out there and create value for someone.

Spain never looked so backward!@@@0 -I barely remember this show, a little ,but I remembered it was great! My eldest brother, reminded me about the show recently and I had seen an advertisement for the D.V.D set coming out. The network, again screwed up in pulling this from the air, so that they could put what else in it's place? It should have gone at least 3 seasons. Why not, right? I think sometimes that the network executives think they are the 'gods' of the entertainment world. But they mis-guess and flat out miss good show placement from time to time. Let it be said that, they have a lot more flops than 'hits'. This was one of the poor decisions to cut from the line-up. Anyhow, I am getting this for my collection.@@@1 -A romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class "artist" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.@@@0 -As a forty-something urban explorer/photography and longtime fan of the original Kolchak: Night Stalker series since my early childhood, one aspect that hasn't really been mentioned is the amount of urban exploration Carl's character undertook during the series. He always managed to get himself in to one great abandonment, sewer or tunnel after another. Armed with only his trusty penlight (okay, so he had some flares in the primal ape episode tunnel) and his camera, he never carried any other gear to either protect himself or make the exploration easier.

Like many here, I recently purchased the DVD box set of the two pilot movies and subsequent TV episodes, and have been slowly revisiting all the shows. And although I remember watching them back in the early 70s when they first aired, its been over 30 years passed...so many of them seem new all over again. Campy, dated and cheesy - but charming and highly entertaining. They just don't make stuff like this these days. Now its all regurgitated spin-offs with predictable characters and plots.

Thankfully, my 16-yr-old daughter has been sitting down to watch the episodes with me and has developed an appreciation for them (she enjoys the genre). It gives me hope and faith the series will carry on to new generations of fans for years to come.@@@1 -This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.

I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.

And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.

Sigh. I give it a 1.@@@0 -Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.@@@1 -Quentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish "Ken Loach" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely "Purely Belter," which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.@@@0 -There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age.@@@1 -AKA: Mondays In The Sun

I have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.

I have read reviews touting the performances herein as "wonderful," "beautiful," and "heroic." I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.

All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.

It rates a ZERO/10 from...

the Fiend :.@@@0 -A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately – but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.

Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn’t regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula – dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody’s hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps – but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.

That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) – not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he’s never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)!

While the hero’s cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there’s a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin’s relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) – to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there’s a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.

For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight’s armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast – featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak’s co-workers) return in the same roles – Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I’d lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – while, as the weakest, I’d go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I’ve already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).

Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself – in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise – returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet…but, for various reasons, I’m not sure I’d want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic!@@@1 -This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.

I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.

The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.

everyone has a bomb right?@@@0 -"Kolchak" was a TV series that really didn't fit into any category. Part horror, part comedy, some social awareness thrown in, and what we have is something that I think people weren't ready for. It's a shame really, as I've started to watch these shows on the Chiller network, (I never saw the originals), I realized how different and interesting it really was.

Starring Darren Mcgavin as Kolchak a reporter for the International News Service, and Simon Oakland as his always angry boss, Tony Vincenzo, the show followed the exploits of a Chicago news reporter who more often than not, became a part of the story himself, as he searched the windy city for modern day creepies that go bump in the night. The underlying charm of Macgavin really sets the show apart. A somewhat goofy guy, who always wears the same suit, you cannot help but love him. His jokes are great, and the back and forth between him and the skeptical editor, Oakland, are downright hilarious.

The stories are for the most part pretty good, and the acting is very good. The 70's were not a *great* period for special effects, and the show suffers for it, but if you suspend disbelief, what you have is a fun series that was ahead of it's time.@@@1 -This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.

The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film.@@@0 -I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless.@@@1 -Guy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.@@@0 -I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.@@@1 -Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.

This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.

But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."

This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.@@@0 -It's a genuine shame that this spin-off TV series inspired by the superior made-for-TV pictures "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler" only lasted a single season and twenty episodes, because at its best this program offered an often winning and highly entertaining blend of sharp cynical humor (Carl Kolchak's spirited verbal sparring matches with perpetually irascible and long-suffering editor Tony Vincenzo were always a treat to watch and hear), clever writing, nifty supernatural menaces (gotta love the offbeat and original creatures in "The Spanish Moss Murders," "The Sentry," and "Horror in the Heights," plus you can't go wrong with such tried'n'true fright favorites as zombies, vampires, werewolves, and witches), colorful characters, lively acting from a raft of cool guest stars (legendary biker flick icon William Smith got a rare chance to tackle a heroic lead in "The Energy Eater" while other episodes featured great veteran character actors like Keenan Wynn, John Fiedler, John Dehner, Severn Darden, and William Daniels in juicy roles), effective moments of genuine suspense (the sewer-set climax of "The Spanish Moss Murders" in particular was truly harrowing), and, best of all, the one and only Darren McGavin in peak zesty form as the brash, aggressive, and excitable, but basically decent, brave, and honest small-time Chicago, Illinois newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak.

Kolchak was the quintessential 70's everyman protagonist, a wily and quick-witted fellow with a strong nose for a tasty scoop and an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble. Moreover, the occasionally bumbling Kolchak was anything but superhuman; he usually either tripped or stumbled while running away from a deadly threat, yet possessed a certain inner strength and courage that enabled him to save the human race time and time again from all kinds of lethal otherworldly foes. Kolchak was surrounded by a handful of enjoyable secondary characters: Simon Oakland was perfect as Carl's chronically ill-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo, Jack Grinnage as the prissy Ron Updyke made for an ideal comic foil, Ruth McDevitt was simply delightful as the sweet Miss Emily Cowles, and Carol Ann Susi was likewise a lot of fun as eager beaver rookie Monique Marmelstein (who alas disappeared after popping up in only three episodes). Granted, the show did suffer from lackluster make-up and special effects (the titular lycanthrope in "The Werewolf" unfortunately resembles a Yorkshire terrier!) and the latter episodes boasted a few laughably silly monsters (the headless motorcyclist in "Chopper," Cathy Lee Crosby as Helen of Troy in "The Youth Killer'), but even the second-rate shows are redeemed by the program's trademark wickedly sly sardonic wit and McGavin's boundless vitality and engagingly scrappy presence.@@@1 -I don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.

To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.

The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.

Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.@@@0 -WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (but not really - keep reading). Ahhh, there are so many reasons to become utterly addicted to this spoof gem that I won't have room to list them all. The opening credits set the playful scene with kitsch late 1950s cartoon stills; an enchanting Peres 'Prez' Prado mambo theme which appears to be curiously uncredited (but his grunts are unmistakable, and no-one else did them); and with familiar cast names, including Kathy Najimi a full year before she hit with Sister Acts 1 & 2 plus Teri Hatcher from TV's Superman.

Every scene is imbued with shallow injustices flung at various actors, actresses and producers in daytime TV. Peeking behind the careers of these people is all just an excuse for an old-fashioned, delicious farce. Robert Harling penned this riotous spoof that plays like an issue of MAD Magazine, but feels like a gift to us in the audience. Some of the cliched characters are a bit dim, but everyone is drizzling with high jealousy, especially against Celeste Talbert (Sally Field) who is the show's perennial award-winning lead, nicknamed "America's Sweetheart". The daytime Emmies-like awards opening does introduce us to Celeste's show, The Sun Also Sets. Against all vain fears to the contrary, Celeste wins again. She is overjoyed, because it's always "such a genuine thrill": "Adam, did you watch? I won! Well, nguh..." The reason for Adam's absence soon becomes the justification for the entire plot, and we're instantly off on a trip with Celeste's neuroses. She cries, screeches, and wrings her hands though the rest of the movie while her dresser Tawnee (Kathy Najimi, constantly waddling after Celeste, unseen through Celeste's fog of paranoia) indulges a taste for Tammy Faye Baker, for which Tawnee had been in fact specifically hired.

Rosie Schwartz (Whoopi Goldberg) has seen it all before. She is the head writer of the show, and she and Celeste have been excellent support networks to each other for 15 years. So when Celeste freaks, Rosie offers to write her off the show for six months: "We'll just say that Maggie went to visit with the Dalai Lama." But Celeste has doubts: "I thought that the Dalai Lama moved to LA." "-Well, then, some other lama, Fernando Lamas, come on!". Such a skewering line must be rather affronting to still living beefcake actor Lorenzo Lamas, son of aforementioned Fernando Lamas (d. 1982).

Those who can remember the economics teacher (Ben Stein) in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) as he deadeningly calls the roll ("Bueller. Bueller. Bueller"), will take secret pleasure from seeing him again as a nitwit writer. Other well hidden member of the cast include Garry Marshall (in real life Mr Happy Days and brother of Penny), who "gets paid $1.2 million to make the command decisions" on The Sun Also Sets - he says he definitely likes "peppy and cheap"; and Carrie Fisher as Betsy Faye Sharon, who's "a bitch".

Geoffrey Anderson (Kevin Kline) is the "yummy-with-a-spoon" (and he is, by the way) dinner theater actor now rescued from his Hell by David Seaton Barnes (Robert Downey Jr), and brought back to the same show he was canned from 20 years earlier. Of course this presents some logical challenges for the current scriptwriters because his character, Rod Randall, was supposed to have been decapitated all those years ago. Somehow they work out the logical difficulties, and Geoffrey Anderson steps off the choo-choo.

Celeste can now only get worse, and her trick of going across the Washington bridge no longer helps. First, her hands shake as she tries to put on mascara, but she soon degenerates into a stalker. Unfortunately, she cannot get rid of Geoffrey Anderson so easily. Geoffrey's been promised development of his one-man play about Hamlet, and he means to hold the producer to that promise. "I'm not going back to Florida no-how!", argues Geoffrey. "You try playing Willie Loman in front of a bunch of old farts eating meatloaf !" And indeed, seeing Geoffrey's dinner theater lifestyle amongst all the hocking and accidents is hilarious. Back in Florida in his Willie Loman fat suit in his room, Geoffrey Anderson used to chafe at being called to stage as "Mr Loman". He was forced to splat whatever cockroaches crawled across his TV with a shoe, and to use pliers instead of the broken analog channel changer. Now he find himself as the yummy surgeon dating Laurie Craven, the show's new ingenue; so he's not leaving.

Beautiful Elizabeth Shue (as Laurie) rounds out the amazing ensemble cast who all do the fantastic job of those who know the stereotypes all too well. But, of course, the course to true love never did run smoothly. Montana Moorehead (Cathy Moriarty) is getting impatient waiting for her star to rise, and is getting desperate for some publicity.

Will her plots finally succeed? Will Celeste settle her nerves, or will she kill Tawnee first? Will the producer get Mr Fuzzy? -You'll just have to watch * the second half * of this utterly lovable, farcically malicious riot.

And you'll really have to see to believe how the short-sighted Geoffrey reads his lines without glasses live off the TelePrompter. If you are not in stitches with stomach-heaving laughter and tears pouring down your face, feel free to demand your money back for the video rental. Soapdish (1991) is an unmissable gem that you will need to see again and again, because it's not often that a movie can deliver so amply with so many hilarious lines. This is very well-crafted humor, almost all of it in the writing. A draw with Blazing Saddles (1974) for uproarious apoplexy value, although otherwise dissimilar. Watch it and weep. A happy source for anyone's video addiction. 10 out of 10.@@@1 -Although there are some snippets in this 4-part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform, these are not very well-developed, in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs.

Although this program, as a whole, leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money, and for that it deserves some praise, almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to--very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you, if asked, they think the drug war is designed to solve. For example, while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80's, at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law, forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. But instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence, the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. Inexplicably, alcohol prohibition, the violence that ensued, and the subsequent reversal of prohibition, is totally ignored by this program.

This program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users, and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. The possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. Use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems, but not all users do their drugs in excess, just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics.

If you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government, for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science, has decided to totally prohibit, whose users it has decided to not-so-metaphorically wage war against, just forget about it. None of that is in here.

On the other hand, this is hardly in the category of anti-drug propaganda. It is mostly an interesting neutrally-presented history of drugs in 20th century United States like marijuana, LSD, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, and Oxycontin. But there is a significant element of various people's points of view with regard to drug laws, and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well-informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality, especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana.

The criminal justice system, along with its often harsh life-ruining penalties, is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem, but unfortunately there's an epidemic in this nation of an as-yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs, a lack of compassion for fellow humans, a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally-approved, perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison/policing industry, and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. It's morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so, and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. This is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs, yet this program ignores it.

So, in sum, the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. But when it comes to presenting a rational non-radical point of view with regard to drug policy, and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives, it's pretty disappointing.@@@0 -I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.@@@1 -It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.

There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round.

@@@0 -Weak scripts at times? Yep! Cheesy special effects at times? Yep! Deliciously guilty pleasure most of the time? Yep! More about Carl Kolchak and Darren McGavin? Yep! I always enjoyed science fiction as a kid, but found so much of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy/horror stuff as just so much crap. It took Abbott and Costello to give me a new perspective on the classic Universal monsters, and it took Carl Kolchak to win me over to the "dark side" of entertainment. The Duke had Rooster Cogburn, Eastwood had Dirty Harry, Garner had Maverick and Rockford, Selleck had Magnum, and Darren McGavin had Carl Kolchak. Mixed in with all those weak scripts, cheesy special effects, that baroque group of supporting characters and actors and guest stars, there was Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak. He had a wry sense of humor in spite of the danger, was an idealist in his pursuit of the truth, and a realist when it came to accepting the obligatory incompetence and eventual cover-up by government officials. Additionally, unlike 98% of us, Kolchak was willing to stick his neck out and do what needed to be done, even if it meant his demise, the end of his journalistic career, or jail time. For all his faults, including no taste in clothes, Carl Kolchak was a man of charm and wit who drove a beautiful classic yellow Mustang (which was an old used car at the time) on his way to save the day for humanity. As good as any other fictional hero Carl Kolchak was the everyman hero brought to life every week for one season thanks to Darren McGavin. Now that he's passed on and his show is on DVD, I hope he's having as much fun watching me watch him have fun playing Kolchak The Night Stalker all over again!@@@1 -I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.

The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.

Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?

Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.

Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.

Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.

Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.

@@@0 -When originally screened in America in 1972, 'The Night Stalker' became the highest rated made-for-T.V. movie in history. Based on Jeff Rice's unpublished novel, it told how a fearless investigative reporter named Carl Kolchak ( the late Darren McGavin ) discovered the existence of a vampire in modern-day Las Vegas. When it arrived on British television four years later, it did not quite have the same impact, but my friends were talking about it at school on Monday morning, as indeed was I. We all agreed that it was one of the most exciting things we had seen.

I did not know of the existence of 'The Night Strangler' until it turned up nearly a decade later. I.T.V., who screened the 'Kolchak' movies, had apparently decided to pass on the spin-off series; they felt 'Barnaby Jones' starring Buddy Ebsen to be more of a draw, and anyway, viewers might confuse 'Kolchak' with 'Kojak'! For years my only source of information concerning the show was an article in Fangoria magazine. I could not even purchase the Jeff Rice novels.

Then something wonderful happened. In 1990, B.B.C.-2 put out the show as part of a late-night Friday series devoted to the supernatural called 'Mystery Train', hosted by Richard O'Brian. 'Kolchak' found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of 'The Brain Eaters' and 'Earth Vs.The Spider'. The opening titles were trimmed, removing Kolchak's whistling, and the closing credits...well, there were none.

The first episode screened was 'Werewolf'. I cannot say I was overly impressed, but stuck with it, and am I glad that I did!

I really wish I'd seen it in 1974. My twelve year old self would have adored it. Creepy, humorous, exciting, no wonder it fired Chris Carter's imagination.

The show's biggest asset was, of course, McGavin. Unlike the recent Kolchak, the original was an everyman figure, eccentrically dressed, rather conservative. He was to the supernatural what 'Columbo' was to crime. The late Simon Oakland was great too as Kolchak's bad-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo. The scripts overflowed with wonderful, dry wit. I found myself enjoying the programme more for the humour content than the horror. When the twenty episodes ended, I felt bereft.

'The X-Files' came along a few years later and filled the void - but only to an extent. I wanted Kolchak and Vincenzo back. I am glad that the show was never revived though. Without Oakland it would not have been the same.

I have the Rice books now and have read them several times. I was very surprised when Stephen King slated the first ( in his book 'Danse Macabre' ) as it is as good as anything he has written.

Alright, so some of the monsters were hardly state-of-the-art, but so what? The new 'Kolchak' totally missed the point of the original. What you don't see is sometimes more frightening than what you do...

Best Episode - 'Horror In The Heights' Worst Episode - 'The Sentry'@@@1 -*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***

This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.

You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it.

If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.

***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***

Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.

*** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***@@@0 -One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.

Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.

I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.

McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.

Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' !@@@1 -*May contain spoilers*

I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.

Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.

"Swept Away" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his "stylish" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically "The Blue Lagoon" meets "Overboard" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.

Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to "Shanghai Surprise". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet.@@@0 -Not the most successful television project John Cleese ever did, "Strange Case" has the feel of a first draft that was rushed into production before any revisions could be made. There are some silly ideas throughout and even a few clever ones, but the story as a whole unfortunately doesn't add up to much.

Arthur Lowe is a hoot, though, as Dr. Watson, bionic bits and all. "Good Lord."@@@1 -No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.@@@0 -It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.@@@1 -and forget this. Completely. If you really need to see Madonna act, rent "Body of Evidence", at least Willem Defoe is in that one.

In this film, while the sets are beautiful, you may want to mute the dialog. You won't miss anything. Bruce Greenwood is wasted, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a prop, and Madonna is so awful, it becomes amusing. Why they had to butcher the original film into this mess, I will never know; guess they thought it was "bankable". Madonna, as an actress, certainly is NOT.

If you rent the original film from 1979, though, you will enjoy it, and the actors in it can actually act. 1/10.@@@0 -I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics.

The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.

Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight.@@@1 -For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.

She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.

The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.

Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.

So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this "transformation" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.

Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.

Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more "silent" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.@@@0 -If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.

Arthur Lowe is a real treat!

I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.

Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.

I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!!@@@1 -I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind

to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly

acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was

like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring

because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is

wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography

was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from

this unholy@@@0 -You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.@@@1 -I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...@@@0 -The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films.@@@1 -This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.@@@0 -'Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.

The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like "Gloria F*CKING Swanson!"). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.

In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.

'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes.@@@1 -This movie was extremely depressing.

The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband.

She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly.

What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together.

This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)@@@0 -The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected.@@@1 -i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10@@@0 -Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet.@@@1 -This movie is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage ever. It really is surprising that something so completely terrible could be made. But, if you can stand the mind-numbing plot, character development, and direction, you may get a kick out of the soundtrack which is so appalling that it is funny. The movie begins terribly and quickly becomes unwatchable. Someone should give anyone involved with this movie some sort of consolation because their career was probably ruined because of involvement in this movie. If you do end up seeing this movie or have seen it already (I feel your pain) then these words have come too late. For anyone else, Stay away at all costs or realize that the movie is so bad that it will waste 2 hours of your life. Then at least you can clean up or something while viewing it.@@@0 -I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.

P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.@@@1 -First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.@@@0 -This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about.

I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.

I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.

This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)

Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.@@@1 -"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display – which isn't bad – but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds.@@@0 -This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.

It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.

Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.

Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one.@@@1 -Pretty incoherent movie about a man who belonged to and left a 1960s superficially hippie religious cult, who fights them sixteen years later. The man has a child with one of the other cultists, who during a raid by the police is hidden away, and taken by another man named Hawk who lives in a small cabin by the river. The cult kills some of its followers or some of the people in town. It's hard to keep track of who characters are, or what time period the scenes are supposed to be taking place. The leader gets paroled sixteen years later (I got that from the box - I missed the amount of time in the movie). Nobody is made to look any older, not noticeably, anyway.

One murder is done with a large circular logging saw, others are done with knives or a crossbow. I never heard the title character's name mentioned in the movie, but he's the one who overacts the most, hooting and hollering.

The movie is patched together pretty poorly, with voice-over helping (not much) to explain what is going on. Some of the sound effects were pretty bad. A man is getting punched, and we hear the sound of a whip cracking. A woman fires a gun, and we don't hear it fire, but hear a ricochet instead! It doesn't seem to have been done for comical effect.@@@0 -This movie is awesome for three main reasons. It is esthetically beautiful. I absolutely loved that. There is a bold color theme throughout the movie with extraordinary costumes and picturesque sets. A photography which looks very costly (and probably was not) completes the look . I always enjoy those stories about groups of misfits/loners coming together and becoming a family . Sometimes they fall into clichés but this one does not. This group of actors really portrays well flawed, yet extremely likable characters. Alan Larkin is the best (between him , the van and the road movie theme, I could not help but remember my favorite movie of last year Little Miss Sunshine…) . I discovered Fabrizio Bentivoglio , very interesting actor, and just got annoyed a tiny little bit by Til Schweiger performance at times . The opening scene, all the scenes where they mess up their tricks are very funny. There is a mix of humor and emotion throughout the film. I like the end a lot. And of course it is all about the Magician theme . A good magician is making the audience look where he wants them to, to create an illusion. Which happens to be exactly what a movie director does and that's why they call it movie magic.@@@1 -Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.@@@0 -I rented this movie from blockbuster on a whim .. i like alan arkin and the cover was catching ... i read the back and knew right away it was going to either be the best or the worst movie i have ever seen ... i guess i got lucky .. i laughed from beginning to end .. alan arkin brings a great character to this movie. i have since bought a used rental copy for my own collection and watch it all the time .. i have recommeded this movie to loads of people and they all enjoyed it as much as i did ... i see complaints about the menus and dvd functions .. but it doesn't take away from the movie .. the disk was authored for Blockbuster exculsivley which is why they didn't allow you to skip past the previews .. aside from that you shouldn't let the functions of the DVD to deterr you from watching the excellent film.@@@1 -I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)@@@0 -Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.

Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.

Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.

The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.

Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual.@@@1 -

The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!@@@0 -I had seen Lady with Red Hair back when it appeared, and didn't remember it as something to cherish. The truth is that, notwithstanding its base in a true story, its screen play is silly and unbelievable. The real merit of the picture is the cast. A constellation of some of the best supporting players of the 30's and 40's make a background for the delicate, intelligent work of the always underrated Miriam Hopkins, and the wonderful, spectacular performance of Claude Rains, who, as usual, is the best thing in the picture. What an actor! He never won an Oscar, but he is in the good company of Chaplin, Garbo and Hitchcock. Perhaps Lady with Red Hair contains his best work in films. See it and enjoy him.

@@@1 -Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there.@@@0 -As a biographical film, "The Lady With Red Hair" (the story of how director /producer/playwright David Belasco transformed notorious society divorcee Mrs. Leslie Carter into an international stage star) is certainly not in a league with that other Warner's biopic of similar vintage, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (what is?), but "Lady" is an enjoyable film in its own right--AND shares quite a few traits in common with the Cagney classic.

Like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" brims over with old -time show-business flavor. (Among other things, both films feature delicious theatrical boarding-house sequences as well as the inevitable scenes set backstage and in theatrical managers' offices.) Also, in "Lady" as in the Cohan biopic, the supporting cast is made up of familiar and beloved character actors of the period, all doing the sort of top-notch work we remember them for.

Need I add that, again like "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "The Lady With Red Hair" doesn't let the truth get in the way of telling a good story? But, also like "Dandy," "Lady" does manage--gloriously!--to convey the esssence of its show-business-giant hero's larger-than-life personality. Everyone knows that Cagney limned Cohan for all time in his brilliant and affectionate portrayal in "Yankee Doodle Dandy"--but few moviegoers realize that Claude Rains did a similar service for David Belasco in "The Lady With Red Hair"- -and did it with a panache that almost equals Cagney's.

Rains-as-Belasco perfectly captures that legendary showman's galvanic personality in all its outsized glory. Rains gives a tremendously enjoyable , superbly observed, and remarkably true-to-life performance as the man all Broadway once called "The Wizard." To watch Claude Rains in action (looking in every shot as if he's having a helluva good time!) in "The Lady With Red Hair" is to see David Belasco leap to life on film as if he can't wait to shake things up on the Main Stem once again.

@@@1 -Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.

First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.

The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".

Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.

Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.@@@0 -The scene where Sally Field and Whoopi Goldberg go to the mall to revive Sally's flagging spirits is enough reason alone to enjoy this movie, but wait! There's more! This is a crackling good sendup of daytime TV, movie stars on the way down, (and up) and the horrors of love. Robert Downey Jr shows the lighter side of his genius, and Cathy Moriarty is splendid. The dialogue is witty, and the physical humor done with consummate skill. This is a movie that will appeal to those who really enjoy the arts of acting, directing, and writing.@@@1 -I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.

I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.

The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching.@@@0 -A group of friends decide to take a camping trip into the desert-and find themselves stalked and murdered by a mysterious killer in a black pick-up truck."Mirage" is obviously inspired by Spielberg's "Duel" and Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes".Still this slasher yarn offers plenty of nasty violence and gore.The film's gory highlight is a sequence involving a man having his arm and leg chained together around a tree and then having his limbs dismembered when the chain is pulled by a truck.There is also a little bit of suspense and some exciting stalk-and-slash sequences.The acting is pretty lame and the script is quite weak,but the film is fast-paced and shocking.B.G.Steers who plays the villain is fairly threatening.The desert locations provide some atmosphere and the gore is rather strong.Overall,if you like low-budget horror films give this one a look.8 out of 10.@@@1 -In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.@@@0 -I remember that i was a child when i first saw this movie, it was my first horror movie (maybe that's the reason why i can still remember some parts of it). I don't remember much about acting, nude scenes or other things but i do remember a male has head blown up with a grenade, a male dismembered over a tree and a male run down by truck and shot in head :) (Todd Schaefer, Kenny Johnson and Kevin McParland). I also remember the last scene when Jennifer McAllister riped of the killer stomach to get the keys of the truck. It's a movie that gives you the creep and it's worth a look. But where do i find it? How can i download it?@@@1 -The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.@@@0 -Well, this was one of those films I caught on the off-chance, and it was good enough for me to record when it showed up next time... If, like myself, you enjoy many 80's horror flicks that branched out a little from the norm (i.e. not just another glut of generic sequels) then I think you may enjoy this. When the bad guy eventually turns up in person, he was definitely not what I expected to see! All in all, I wouldn't go out of your way for this one, but if you like the genre, then watch it if it comes up and you have an hour and a half to kill, I guess. I'd give it 6.5 out of 10.@@@1 -I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".

Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.

OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).

There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.

2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.

3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.

I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.

Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience@@@0 -This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date ("The Trip", "Joy Ride", "Jeepers Creepers") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended.@@@1 -If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?@@@0 -Mirage (1990) is a very rare horror/chiller from 1990, released here in the UK on the "New World Video" label.

It's a desert based horror film about a group of young friends who are partying for the weekend, only to be killed off one by one by an unknown force who drives a menacing black truck!!! This film has some creepy scenes, and some gore here and there, but i have to say that the acting was so lame, even by low budget standards! But the film was oddly addictive and i liked it, and i never fell asleep or turned it off, which is always a good sign! I nearly gave this movie 6/10, but seeing as it built up steam along the way, had some good moments of gore and suspense, had some good nudity, and the fact that the blonde in the main female role was a hottie too! i'll give it 7/10.@@@1 -*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!

Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.)

The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.

Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.

I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background.

This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week.

Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!@@@0 -Bill Crain's rarer than rare 'slasher' movie certainly doesn't follow the standard stalk and slash guidelines that have become so essential of its counterparts. The bogeyman this time around uses grenades and small arms as well as an awesome array of melee weapons; - a sin that's virtually unacceptable in most post-Halloween genre pieces. But there's still just enough familiarity to keep slasher buffs from checking the rule book and the plot never strays too far from the path that you've grown to expect. Just as Wally Koz's surprisingly decent 555 was seemingly put together with help from various members of his family, Mirage seems to have been a joint production from relatives of the director. Looking through the credits I noticed numerous 'Crains' listed in key positions throughout the construction of the feature. But despite fairly good distribution across the globe, the movie failed to make an impression either side of the Atlantic and now it has become pretty much a phantom of the VHS market. Nevertheless this only made it appeal to me even more and so I strained my resources to track a copy down…

It all takes place in the middle of the dessert, which as I'm sure you'll agree is hardly the most exciting location. With that said though, I must admit that there's certainly going to be no chance of any nosey John Q Laws turning up unexpectedly. Four undeniably beautiful youngsters head out into the sand for a night of debauchery and frolics that always seems to rub homicidal maniacs the wrong way. Chris (Jennifer McAllister) and her boyfriend Greg (Kenny Johnson) meet up with amusing new age hippies Trip (Kevin McParland) and Mary (Nicole Anton) at a make shift camp site in the midst of the dune-like wilderness. Greg's older brother Kyle (Todd Schaefer) and his buxom girlfriend Bambi (Laura Albert) soon turn up to join the body count applicants in their quest for an early grave. Kyle used to date Chris before his younger brother took the liberty of stealing his squeeze – something that Kyle doesn't seem too keen to forget. Sound like a motive for a massacre? Well what did you expect? Before long an unseen someone driving a truck with tinted windows joins the gathering with a unique set of tricks up his sleeve. Will any of the kids survive to turn up for a sequel?

I have had trouble tracking down any information at all about this feature. I don't even know if director Bill Crain is aka William Crain – the man behind Midnight Fear and Blacula among others. Mirage certainly doesn't appear on his official filmography, so your guess is as good as mine. Judging by the credible work behind the camera, I'd have to say that I find it hard to believe that this is the debut of a man with no previous cinematic experience. The film is stylishly photographed with some superb work from DP Michael Crain, and the director boasts a credible talent for building suspense when it's necessary. R. Christopher Biggs' gore FX are imaginatively created and gruesome, and kudos to the sleepy head over at the BBFC who inexplicably let this pass through UNCUT on a usually stringent 18 rating. A couple of the murders are indeed extremely macabre. One guy gets buried up to his neck in sand before coming face to face with a grenade, while another ends up literally legless after loosing a battle with a chain and a pick up truck! There's also some black humor that's surely unintentional. We spend the majority of the feature seeing only the killer's boots as he steps out of his vehicle and stalks the youngsters. But when he's revealed to hilariously resemble Keanu Reeves circa Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, I didn't quite know what to expect. Thankfully Crain knows exactly how to keep things creepy and the showdown is particularly mean spirited as the psycho taunts Chris sadistically.

There are some surprisingly good performances on display from an extremely inexperienced cast. The divine Jennifer McAllister does a superb job as the heroine and B.G. Steers portrays off his rocker dementia with finesse. The Casting director chose wisely to pick some of the most beautiful females ever slaughtered in slasher cinema and it gratefully doesn't come at the cost of thespian potential. The soundtrack works well to build the desolate atmosphere of isolation, which is carefully handled by a director that should have been signed and nurtured by Hollywood bigwigs. Watch out for the superb nightmare sequence that is truly horror film-making at it's freakiest.

Mirage is a good late entry to the cycle that was somewhat unfortunate to miss a boom year placing amongst the slasher elite. When you consider that this was made with just a cast of seven and a pick up truck, you have to say that they did a damn good job. The flaws are numerous, but never detract credibility from the net result. Unfortunately you've probably got more chance of finding liquid gold in your coffee mug than you have of ever tracking down a copy. If you see this one covered in dust on the top shelf of your local video store, then make sure you pick it up. Recommended.@@@1 -Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...

I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.

I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.

It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).

If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...@@@0 -It's hard to watch this movie without thinking forward to the television show it would become, especially if, like me, you happen to like the TV show more. But there's a lot to be said for the source.

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is a top New York City sportswriter who lives in an eight-room apartment by himself, a casualty of divorce and his own stubbornly sloppy mindset. Enter his friend Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon), needing a place to live after his wife threw him out for his stubbornly neatnik mindset. The result is a train wreck and one of the most beloved movie adaptations of a Neil Simon stage play.

First thing's first: I love that apartment! Poker table, novelty dart board, askew photos of baseball players, empty booze and beer containers, even a pair of Roman columns. It's a place where men can be boys. Simon and director Gene Saks do a great job opening up the stage play's single set, Oscar's living room, by moving the action into the bedrooms and kitchen and giving the mounting tension between Oscar and Felix more corners to bounce off of.

Neal Hefti's familiar score was heard on the TV show, but never so sweepingly orchestrated as it is here, in several different arrangements that make the on-screen action soar whenever its played. Real location work and night shots of Manhattan give the film an energy common to films shot in that place and time ("Buddwing," "The World Of Henry Orient," "Midnight Cowboy," "Manchurian Candidate," "Rosemary's Baby," etc.)

Are Lemmon and Matthau too heavy in comparison to Tony Randall and Jack Klugman? To be fair, the movie is meant to be a more serious affair, dealing with the then-uncommon condition of mid-life divorce and the frustration inherent in not being able to make a relationship work. Simon has more in mind than entering Felix and Oscar in a game of "Password" or a battle of wits with Howard Cosell. But I don't know...

Both Lemmon and Matthau were terrific comedians I enjoy watching especially in the middle of this film as I often do in their separate movies, but I never understood why they were regarded as a great comedy team. Here, in their best-regarded partnership, they seem to be acting in two different films; Lemmon in a comedy-drama and Matthau in a farce. Matthau is great in the beginning, charming us with his teddy-bear demeanor around the poker table, but near the end of the film he takes a turn much like Jack Torrance's in "The Shining," reacting to Felix cleaning up his apartment and serving tasty food to his friends in a way that totally upsets the delicate balance of blame.

While the ending bothers me, the part many see as the most jarring, the beginning, works fine as I see it. Watching Felix stumbling around trying to kill himself isn't great comedy, no, but it's a good way to get into a great comedy, setting us up with some real-life pain before bringing in the warmth and laughter. (Plus it has some great shots of the seedier parts of the city.) In the middle of the movie, this scene would have been a miscalculation, but it works as a way of establishing Felix's torment and a sense of sharp relief to come when we see Oscar and his poker friends bicker and feud.

That's where Simon's lines are so great. They are the underlying strength of the film. He gets the banter exactly right and real, and still makes it funny. "I don't mind you talking, Felix. You got things to say. What's scaring me is I'm beginning to listen." The TV show showed how wrong it is to assume the movie is always better, in fact the TV show once made a good point about "assuming" anything at all, but the movie makes for a solid foundation and is a joy in its own right.@@@1 -Well where to start here? Straightheads presents me with a bit of a dilemma. Had this film come out of Italy in, say, 1975, been directed by Ruggero Deodatto and starred David Hess, then I'd be lapping it up faster than Labrador drinks water on a summer's day. Because whilst Tarantino and Rodriguez are busy elsewhere with their homage to grindhouse cinema, Dan Reed has produced a rape/revenge grindhouse picture of his very own in England, and on seemingly the same budget as it would have taken Rodriguez to turn Rose McGowan's leg into a machine gun. Because if you want to play grindhouse bingo, then let me call out the 'numbers':

1. Rich, high flying career woman meets a bit of rough from the wrong side of the tracks in an implausible manner and, equally implausibly, gets the hots for him. Check.

2. Gratuitous shots of said high-flying career woman in various states of nudity. Check.

3. Convoluted and highly unlikely plot development that sets up characters that exist solely to do what they do and who cannot be imagined to have any existence outside the scenes they are in. Check.

4. Unnecessarily graphic rape scene perpetrated by a gang of males with no discernible depth of personality or background other than they are there to rape. Check.

5. Gritty and bloody scenes of murder and revenge to round it all off. Bingo!

Plotwise, Straightheads is pretty basic stuff: Dyer meets Anderson and she invites him to a party at a country pile owned by her boss. On the way home, they upset three locals in a Landover who take their revenge by giving Dyer a good shoeing and gang raping Anderson. The couple then set about getting their revenge. So far, so "Straw Dogs", "Late Night Trains", "House on the Edge of the Park", "I Spit On Your Grave" etc etc. So why didn't I think much of this film? A number of reasons: I suppose first off, having the likes of Gillian Anderson in the cast prima facie lead me to expect better, but it's the complete lack of honesty here than rankles most.

Because whenever anyone sits down to watch Hess and his ilk terrorising women and murdering their menfolk in those period pieces from the 70's, then they always know exactly what they are getting - low budget quickies designed solely to shock and appeal to the lowest common denominator. The baddies terrorise and murder the goodies, the goodies turn the tables on the baddies and kill them back, and everyone goes home satisfied, their desires to see a bit of nasty violence slaked and safe in the knowledge that the world order had been restored.

As writer and director however, Dan Reed clearly believes Straightheads has far more to say on the state of the human psyche than that, and desperately tries to imbibe his film with a philosophical depth that is simply not there. For instance, when Anderson and Dyer are planning revenge on their attackers, they learn that one of the rapists has a fourteen-year-old daughter who is an object of lust for the two men he hangs around with. When Anderson finally meets him face to face, he confesses that he only raped her as a distraction so that his two mates would take their attention away from his daughter!!! The casual and audacious way that Reed drops this little revelation into the plot is simply jaw-dropping, it's almost as if he expects this simple reference to paedophilia to be enough to throw the audience's moral compass into overdrive and make them leave the cinema thinking they've just sat through something of significance. To make sure we 'get it', at this point we are shown a run through of the rape sequence for a second time, ostensibly from the view of the attacker and his concern for his daughter, but Reed ensures that we get plenty more shots of Anderson rough-handled and raped across the bonnet of her car. Gratuitous does not enter into it.

After being told his reasons for raping her, Anderson ties him over a table, rams the business end of a sniper rifle (complete with bulky silencer, just in case anyone wasn't clear on the phallic imagery) up his jacksie but lacks the courage to pull the trigger, telling Dyer (who has no such moral qualms) that 'it's over'. Dyer argues otherwise and their moral dilemma is presented as something that Wittgenstein and Russell may have discussed in their rooms back at Cambridge over tea and cakes. It is almost unwatchable in its ludicrousness.

In fairness, Ms Anderson acts her guts out throughout the film. It's obvious she wants to leave Scully far behind and, bless her, she certainly does that; one wonders what Mulder would have made of his erstwhile partner squatting down to take a leak at the side of the road and then sodomising a man with a gun? Dyer, on the other hand, does what he's done in virtually every film he's made to date - that is, plays a gor blimey guv cockney type chappie with a roguish grin, a cheeky line of patter and a face that most people would never get tired of punching. This is particularly true at the closing scene where, after murdering his assailants in cold blood, Dyer gazes at the camera in, what I'm sure is meant to be, a look of existential anguish that invites us to sympathise at the hand fate has dealt him and the moral quandaries he has had to overcome, but instead is far more reminiscent of Oliver Hardy looking exasperatedly at the camera after Stan has landed him in yet another fine mess. Which incidentally, sums up this film quite nicely.@@@0 -Neil Simon had a knack for dialog and nowhere is this more evident than the lines he gives WALTER MATTHAU and JACK LEMMON as opposite types in THE ODD COUPLE--a mixture of comedy and sadness that depends entirely on the believability of two such mismatched friends sharing an apartment.

Lemmon is neatnik Felix Ungar, bent on suicide after the divorce from his wife and reluctantly agreeing to share an apartment with Oscar Madison (Matthau) with somewhat disastrous results. Seems that everything Felix says and does drives Oscar up the wall and neither one can stand the other's ways, with Oscar being the messiest male imaginable and Felix the exact opposite.

Funniest scene for me was when the giggling Pigeon sisters in the apartment above visit them on a dinner date. The priceless interaction between Lemmon, Matthau and Carole Shelley and Monica Evans is enough to put you in stitches. The talented Pigeon sisters are the gals who did the voices for the Gabble Sisters (a pair of geese) in Disney's THE ARISTOCATS, and here--their comic timing on top of Lemmon's sad story of despair is enough to spin the film into hilarity--where it remains much of the time.

If you're a Neil Simon fan and have enjoyed other screen treatments of his work, this one is not to be missed. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly cast (even though they considered exchanging roles before filming began) and, of course, it's easy to see why it became a top-rated TV show later on.

Summing up: Top Simon comedy, not to be missed.@@@1 -I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.

The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.

The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.

There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.@@@0 -Felix Unger (Jack Lemmon) has just been dumped by his wife, because he is one of the most annoying , neurotic people in the world. Suicide is his way out, but he just can't seem to get it to work, so he heads over to his friends house. Oscar Madison (Walther Matthau) is also recently divorced and living it up in bachelor heaven. Smoking, gambling, hitting on chicks, eating out and never cleaning is paradise to him. Well, with the suicide attempts Oscar decides to let Felix move in. At first, it is a match made in heaven, Felix cooks and cleans and helps Oscar pay his alimony on time, but soon Oscar is jonesing for women and Felix (who in today's world would probably be gay) isn't ready to move on. They invite a couple of British birds over and they find Felix so tender that soon they and Felix are weeping and chatting about his family life, leaving Oscar denied. This is it, he explodes and throws him out, but Felix isn't as helpless as it seems, and soon he has the upper hand. My favorite quote "You leave me little notes on my pillow. Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. "We're all out of cornflakes. F.U." Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Based on a Neil Simon play (who also wrote the screenplay), this has a certain theatre feel to it. Set and the repartee and looks feel quite play-like (for better or worse). Lemmon and Mathau have excellent comedic chemistry and have appeared in the Grumpier Old Men movies and Out to Sea, reprising the same finicky/slob roles, but with different names (to avoid royalty issues, I'm sure).

This movie is like strawberries dipped in chocolate. The chocolate is smooth, sweet and rich, the strawberry is tart, juicy and bright red (unless you get those nasty greenish ones). They are almost polar opposites, but together, the contrasts highlight each other and make a wonderful dessert. 7/10

http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies@@@1 -A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.

Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.

I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.

Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)

Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at "The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out "Tunes of Glory" for something worth making, that has something to say.

Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.@@@0 -THE ODD COUPLE is the classic film version of Neil Simon's most famous play about a TV newswriter named Felix Unger, who is an obsessive neat freak, who moves in with his divorced best friend, Oscar Madison, a sportswriter and complete slob, after his wife Frances throws him out of their apartment. Already divorced, Oscar takes his best friend in and regrets it from the moment he does it. Neil Simon's classic comedy first came to Broadway with Art Carney playing Felix and Walter Matthau playing Oscar. Jack Lemmon takes over for Carney in the film version with a memorable performance as Felix Unger. Lemmon is not only terribly funny in the role but so vividly real that he brings an element of melancholy to the pitiful figure that is Felix Unger. Matthau, fortunately, was allowed to recreate his role as Oscar, a one-of-a-kind gem of comic performance that provides consistent laughs throughout. This teaming of Lemmon and Matthau turned out to be comic gold that was re-visited in nine other films. With both of these actors no longer with us, the viewing of this classic becomes more touching but no less hilarious. Simon's play has been nicely expanded for the screen with a silent prologue chronicling a depressed Felix's suicide attempt that is a winner. The supporting cast includes Herb Edelman, John Fiedler, Larry Haines, and David Sheiner as Oscar's poker playing buddies and Moncia Evans and Carole Shelley as the Piedgon Sisters, blind dates of Oscar and Felix. Of course, it later became an excellent TV series with Tony Randall and Jack Klugman, but there's nothing like the original. A joy from start to finish.@@@1 -This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!@@@0 -This has to be, hands down, hats off, one of the most uproarious comedies ever made. Starting with the animated blowing, popping bubbles, the entrance to the Daytime Awards, the usual phony drivel spewed by the stars on the red carpet, the rehearsed and badly acted acceptance speech, the venomous comments uttered by the actor's jealous co-stars and producer, under phony smiles. Now THAT is only in the first few minutes. Then, all hell breaks loose from there and it only gets more frantic and ridiculous. Ridiculous in a good way, no, make that a great way. This was the first time I'd seen the always charming Teri Hatcher. While I may not be a follower of Desperate Housewives, she herself is always watchable - same goes for Lois & Clark. Not a huge follower, but if I run across an episode I'd watch it. Robert Downey, jr., does a great turn as slimy, smarmy, snaky, sycophantic David Seaton Barnes, the producer who'd give his right eye to see Sally Field's Celeste Talbert leave the show, if only to finally get to get it on with Cathy Moriarty's Montana Moorehead.

Moriarty absolutely shines in this movie, just as she had everywhere else she's appeared. Here, all she has to do is scream "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU CREEP!" or give one of her anti-Celeste-co-conspirators an evil grin, and she has me rolling in the aisles. Yes, Cathy Moriarty is a very gifted actress, and one hell of a comedienne. Sally Field gratefully departs from the usual 70-MM-sized Lifetime Tragedy of the Week movies, and we're all reminded why she is who she is today, having started off in comedy afraid of nothing. Her ensuing years of drama had hidden her sense of humor, but like a caterpillar in a cocoon, the brilliant comedienne she is had blossomed and it was joyous to see her as hilarious as she was. The thing with dramatic actors and actresses is that you see in such heavy, serious roles, that you associate them with their character and you can't believe it when you see them finally having some fun on screen.

How lucky were the producers to land Carrie Fisher, if only for a glorified cameo. She doesn't realize what a presence she bears on screen. She takes a role which, in the hands of a lesser actress, could easily have been forgotten, but she owns the character and it seems as if she wrote it herself.

How lucky was Elisabeth Shue to get thrown in the middle of all this! At the time, she wasn't really known for much. Adventures in Babysitting was kind of cute (yes, I was dragged to an evening show for which I had to pay full price), but she didn't hold my attention - - much. But here, she makes the most of her character - star's niece who falls in love with the star's ex-co-star-and-lover who, of course, turns out to be the niece's father, and the star turns out to be the poor girl's mother.

I'll stop there - I feel I practically wrote a book about this brilliant screwball comedy, or at least a novela. If you've seen it, then reminisce. If you haven't, you've missed a real classic, but not really. The DVD's are made of a material that'll last for at least 25 years, and this movie is timeless, so what the hell.@@@1 -Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover.

Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene.

A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.@@@0 -This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! "The Odd Couple" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS!@@@1 -This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.

Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.

This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.

The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.@@@0 -Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt.@@@1 -This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but "She is raped" "They laugh to her" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ...@@@0 -The first time I saw this, I didn't laugh too much. At the time, I was only about fifteen years old and thought that maybe some of the deeper humor was too mature for me to understand at the time. I had the same reaction when I viewed it a second time a few months ago, and this time, it was because Felix's aborted suicide attempt at the beginning of the movie kind of darkened the movie a bit. This scene made some of the things Oscar said and did to Felix later in the movie seem needlessly cruel, and their personality clashes weren't as amusing as they could have been. Had I not already known the story, I would have been worried that some of Oscar's antics to Felix might push him over the edge. As it was, it didn't make me laugh or smile like the television show with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall did. Still, all in all, a pretty good movie and it spawned one of the greatest sitcoms on television. 7 out of 10.@@@1 -An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...

Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).

The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.

A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.@@@0 -Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.

It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.

Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this.@@@1 -Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.

The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.@@@0 -Some of the best movies that are categorized as "comedies" actually blur between comedy and drama. "The Graduate" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", which were made also in the late 1960's are perfect examples. Are they comedies with dramatic undertones, or dramas with a lot of humor? In many respects, "The Odd Couple" falls into this same category of being both comedy yet highly dramatic with deep underpinnings about human nature. Much of what happens may be funny to the audience but the characters are not laughing.

Despite the rather light-hearted TV show of the 1970's, the original "Odd Couple" is not merely about a neat guy and messy guy who are forced to live together because of their marital situation. It's really about two opposites who must face why their marriages fell apart and how their detrimental idiosyncrasies reveal themselves outside of their marriage. Neatness, the characteristic of Felix Ungar (Jack Lemon perfectly cast) and messiness, the characteristic of Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau), are only the beginning and somewhat superficial. As the story unfolds, we find there is a lot more to these men than simply neatness versus messiness.

Briefly, the story is really about Felix Ungar, who has to face an impending divorce from his wife Francis, who we never meet but is an important character throughout the story. On the verge of suicide, Ungar goes to the only place he knows: the apartment of Oscar Madison where a group of poker buddies hang out every so often. We learn that Ungar is not only a member of this "poker club" but the group knows what's happening to him and try, in their inept way, to help out. Madison figures the best way to help Ungar is to let him move in with him until his suicidal tendencies wear off.

Unfortunately for Madison, he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Madison is a carefree happy-go-lucky if rather irresponsible slob who's refrigerator was last cleaned probably when Herbert Hoover was still in the White House. Madison's idea of serving snacks is grabbing moldy cheese and sticking them in between two pieces of bread, and then throwing the contents of a bag of chips on the table. On the other hand, he enjoys booze and women, in short having a good time.

Ungar is not only altogether different, he is diametrically opposite. He is not only an obsessive neatness nut that finds more joy in disinfecting the apartment than meeting women but he knows more than most women do about cooking and fine eating. At one point, he calls his ex-wife, not to talk about reconciling, but to get her recipe for meatloaf. At another moment, Ungar was going to spend the rest of the evening cutting cabbage for coleslaw. When Madison seems unimpressed, Ungar finally confesses he was only doing it for his roommate because he can't stand coleslaw. Who is this guy? But he has another endearing trait: Felix is also a hypochondriac. He obsesses about his health to the point where he makes strange noises in public places claiming he's helping his sinuses. He seems to have every health condition in the book. And if they made up more, Felix would probably have them. Ultimately, he is overly self-absorbed.

Running throughout the movie are references to marriage. At one point when Madison is trying to convince Ungar to move in, he says, "What do you want, a wedding ring?" But little does he know that it is not the neat guy who can't deal with the messy guy, but the other way around. Their friendship becomes an inadvertent hellish relationship. And the climax occurs when Oscar invites two lonely British sisters for a get-together with both comedic and tragic results. This is one of the best comedies of its type ever written and not to be missed, with superlative performances by Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon in roles that are hard to imagine better played by anyone else. It is unfortunate that writing of this caliber is sadly lacking from most comedies being produced today.@@@1 -I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting.@@@0 -The original movie, The Odd Couple, has some wonderful comic one-liners. The entire world it seems knows the story of neurotic neat-freak Felix Ungar and funny, obnoxious, slob Oscar Madison. This paring of mismatched roommates created one of the most successful TV series of all time as well as countless, not anywhere near as good, imitations.

The Odd Couple movie has some wonderful jokes about Oscar's apartment and his sloppy habits. He says, "Who wants food?" One of his poker player buddies asks, "What do ya got?" Oscar says, "I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches." "What's the brown?" It's either very new cheese or very old meat!" I also love the line about Oscar's refrigerator, "It's been out of order for two weeks, I saw milk standing in there that wasn't even in a bottle!" There is no question that Walter Matthau's Oscar Madison is a joy to watch on screen. He's almost as good as Jack Klugman's version in the TV series.

The problem with the movie is Jack Lemmon's Felix Ungar. Jack makes a very, very, honest effort at the role. The problem is that he makes Felix SO depressing and down-trodden that he becomes more annoying than comical. Tony Randall's performance in the series, brought the kind of humor, warmth, and sensitivity, to Felix's character, which Lemmon's portrayal lacks. Tony's Felix Unger obviously could be annoying some of the time. However, in the TV series, it related to specific situations where the annoyance was needed in the storyline. Jack's Felix Ungar, (note the different spelling) in the movie, seems to never be happy, fun, or interesting. The movie Felix Ungar is a roommate that drives you up the wall, all the time.

The movie still has great moments that withstand the test of time, the "famous" meatloaf fight is one of the greatest scenes ever! One of the other great examples of Felix's "little notes" on Oscar's pillow will be remembered forever. However, there are some darker sides where Oscar goes over the top, His "crying" near the end after bawling out Felix, and a scene involving Felix's Linguine dinner, (although lightened by a funny line.) seem more depressing than comical.

Perhaps there wasn't enough time to see the lighter side of these characters that made the series so memorable in the movie. The beginning 20 minutes are very boring. The same issue occurs with Felix's conversation with the Pidgeon Sisters. The movie's ending is predictable and too pat. There's very little care or compassion for each of them by the other. The result is that the darker side of the film leads to a lot of depression and anger, rather than comedy, unless you are watching the great scenes described above. It appears that Jack Lemmon's monotone persona of Felix brings the film down, rather than enhances or embraces the comedy between the characters.

It really took the 1970's TV series to make The Odd Couple the best that it could be. The original film is still very good. However, the TV series is much better.@@@1 -This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.@@@0 -First ever viewing: July 21, 2008

Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.

One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!

Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.@@@1 -Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.

(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment.

`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.

Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.

We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.

Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two – a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones…@@@0 -and laugh out loud funny in many scenes.

The movie's basic plot is well chronicled, a story of opposites trying to find a way to survive each other in close proximity.

This is unquestionably Lemmon and Matheau's best film as co-stars, and the interaction between the sloppy Oscar and the OCD Felix are classic.

The scene where Oscar lines up a double date, leaves the room briefly, and comes back to find Felix and the two girls all crying is pricelessly funny.

For any fan of intelligent comedies, The Odd Couple is a "go out of your way to see it" film.@@@1 -what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.@@@0 -Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.

He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.

The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.

This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.@@@1 -Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).

While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.

This is my truth. What is yours?@@@0 -There's nothing really to dislike about "The Odd Couple," and it's no surprise that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau make a hugely winning comedic team. But there's something so underdeveloped about Neil Simon's adaptation of his hit stage play as to make it seem more like a skit on a sketch comedy show than a full-bodied film. I have not seen the play, but have to assume that the screen version is fairly faithful, since Simon wrote it, so the defects cannot be blamed on a stage-to-screen adaptation. There are some interesting ideas in this story--two recently divorced men who fall immediately into traditional married roles when they become roommates because neither knows any differently--that Simon never fully fleshes out. Still, there are many worse ways to kill a couple of hours.@@@1 -Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.

The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.@@@0 -I think that this is possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen. Robert Harling's script is near perfect, just check out the "quotes" section; on second thought, just rent the DVD, since it's the delivery that really makes the lines sing.

Sally Field gives a comic, over-the-top performance like you've never seen from her anywhere else, and Kevin Kline is effortlessly hilarious. Robert Downey, Jr. is typically brilliant, and in a very small role, Kathy Najimy is a riot as the beleaguered costumer. I was never much of a fan of Elisabeth Shue, but she's great here as the one *real* person surrounded by a bevy of cartoon characters on the set of "The Sun Also Sets" -- that rumbling you feel beneath you is Hemingway rolling over in his grave. Either that, or he's laughing really hard.

Five stars. Funny, funny, funny.@@@1 -May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.

Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness.

Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...@@@0 -If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.@@@1 -I knew I was going to see a low budget movie, but I expected much more from an Alex Cox film. The acting by the two leading men was terrible, especially the white guy. The girl should have won an Oscar compared to those two. This movie was filled with what I guess would be inside jokes for film industry people and a few other jokes that I actually understood and made me laugh out loud, which is rare. Without these laugh-out-loud moments I would have given this film 2/10. What happened to the Alex Cox who made all the 80s classics?

SPOILER:

There were a couple of questions I had after the movie was over. Why did the Mexican guy go to the other guy's house at the beginning? What did his daughter say he got 100 people fired from his last job? Why was she breaking her own stuff when she was mad at him? I guess I should have gone to the Q&A after the movie, but I didn't want to get up at 10am.@@@0 -THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)

Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners.@@@1 -Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.

0/10.@@@0 -Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally).

For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.

For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.@@@1 -I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make.

She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes.

The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense.

Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.@@@0 -There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says "Good night." "Goodbye," he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together — aha, he's going to off himself — we watch him struggle to open the window — oh no, he's going to jump — The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger — his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy — it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes — no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags — just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married — to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys.@@@1 -Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing "Apocalypse Now" that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie?

You have to wonder what the director of "The Godfather" and "The Conversation" was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.

It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.

Grade: C-@@@0 -I don't think I've really ever given Walter Matthau his due as a comedic performer. He's certainly been wonderful in plenty of lighthearted roles, but I guess I always put his success down to his characters' grumpiness and ruthlessness, a gruff contrast to the flamboyant personality of his frequent co-star Jack Lemmon, and, I suppose, a natural extension of his earlier work in dramatic pictures. Watching Gene Saks' 'The Odd Couple (1968),' adapted from a popular Neil Simon play, the realisation suddenly clicked: Matthau is, in his own right, absolutely hilarious! Initially striking the audience as filthy, crude and generally unappealing, his Oscar Madison eventually manages to worm his way into our hearts, culminating in a hilariously overplayed confession of emotions that Matthau rasps out in a voice not entirely his own. At the same time, while holding his own as a comedian, his interplay with Lemmon is, of course, pitch-perfect; indeed, the film rightly belongs to both actors, who have never failed to light up the cinema screen by themselves, let alone together.

Calling to mind Billy Wilder's screenplay for 'The Apartment (1960),' this Neil Simon comedy builds itself around around a rather morbid premise. Compulsive house-cleaner Felix Unger (Lemmon), having just been evicted by his wife of twelve years, attempts to commit suicide, but fruitlessly abandons the idea after he wrecks his back trying to open the hotel window. Dejected, he arrives at the house of good friend Oscar (Matthau), a divorced slob who lives alone on a diet of potato crisps and green sandwiches (that might contain either very new cheese or very old meat!). Oscar kindly offers Felix a place to stay, but is soon overwhelmed by his friend's finicky personality and constant insistence on absolute cleanliness. The pair form an unusual sort of marital arrangement, with Felix assuming the role of the effeminate and constantly-nagging wife, and Oscar as the sloppy, unappreciative husband who always comes home later than he's supposed to. This is a marriage that barely lasts three weeks, and, by the end of it, we can completely sympathise with Felix's ex-wife, who remains unseen.

'The Odd Couple' is a terrific comedy, most of all because it has a lot of heart. For all their arguing, it's obvious that the two roommates have plenty of affection for each other, most movingly seen when Felix tries to launch into a furious tirade, instead – perhaps inadvertently – ending up informing Oscar how "tops" he his. The pair's four poker buddies (John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner and Larry Haines) are also constantly badgering each other about some obscure annoyance, but you can't deny that they've got the best of intentions. Their decision to treat Felix as though nothing has happened to him may have sounded fine in theory, but maybe being ignored wasn't quite the correct solution to Felix's gloomy feelings of inadequacy and inconsequentiality. Unlike some comedies based on popular stage plays {I was recently disappointed by Wilder's 'The Seven Year Itch (1955)}, this film doesn't simply strike at the same chord throughout, and the relationship between the two leads is progressively developed, through tears, laughter and much disagreement.@@@1 -This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.@@@0 -A simple comment...

What can I say... this is a wonderful film that I can watch over and over. It is definitely one of the top ten comedies made. With a great cast, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau wording a perfect script by Neil Simon, based on his play.

It is real to life situation done perfectly. If you have digital cable, one gets the menu on bottom of screen to give what is on. It usually gives this film ***% stars but in reality it deserves **** stars. If you really watch this film, one can tell that it will be as funny and fresh a hundred years from now.@@@1 -A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.@@@0 -Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau began and ending their career together. Remember best as the Grumpiest of Old Men as well as the Oddest Couple to have ever made us laugh, Lemmon and Matthau were one of Hollywood's best loved comedy teams of the last 100 years. Not as "raunchy" as Pryor and Wilder, instead, they were the classic comedy team that reflected a more modern Marx Brothers routine. Such as the physical comedy as well as the mixed blend of chaos that Marx, Chaplin and Keaton were so famous for. In the Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau play complete opposites that create the chaos. The physical comedy is as unique as Chaplins. The joke is usually on themselves as oppose to passing the joke onto another. Not your typical guy film, it is in a way a coming of age comedy with two old men as oppose to two young teenagers in their prime. The chemistry between Lemmon and Matthau is entertainment enough. Although this movie isn't for everyone, this is a great comedy.@@@1 -Oh, those Italians! Assuming that movies about aristocrats with weird fetishes, castles drowned in gothic atmosphere, and back-stabbing relatives trying to get their hands on an inheritance are inherently interesting to all! If you've seen one film of this type, you've basically seen them all (the MST3K favorite "Screaming Skull" fits the mold, too)...and "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is formulaic, by-the-numbers, and dull as hell. Even the luscious Erika Blanc is put to waste here.

zero/10

@@@0 -Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean "house husband" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses.

Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!

Very entertaining.@@@1 -*SOILER* It's fake! The whole thing is a fake! There is no ghosts or zombies, Alan is a Lord and his cousin or brother or half brother or something like that wants the castle and his title for himself. So he invests this overly complicated and needless pointless plan ala SCOOBY-DOO to drive Alan to commit suicide. Most of the movie is him picking up redheads and attacking them. He's not even killing them. He drops off to sleep and the girl vanishes and he thinks he buried them someplace. If he looked at the so-called ghost of Evelyn, he could tell she was wearing gloves! My God what a waste of time. Don't bother watching it, renting and if you bought it and haven't watched it yet, sell it. Quickly! Do yourself a favor and stay away from THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE. I give this stinker the CRAP-O-LANTERN.@@@0 -"The Odd Couple" is one of those movies that far surpasses its reputation. People all know it, they hum the theme song, they complain of living with a sloppy "Oscar" or a fastidious "Felix"...but they're under-selling the film without knowing it. This isn't just about a neat guy living with a sloppy guy; it's a portrait of two friends helping each other through the agony of divorce. It's also damn funny from start to finish, but it's the kind of comedy that arises from realistic, stressful, and just plain awful situations. So, some viewers have actually found the film to be a bit uncomfortable, but I think its verisimilitude is its strength. Besides, Matthau's bulldog face just cracks me up! My favorite comedy, by a country mile.@@@1 -Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.@@@0 -The Odd Couple is a comic gem. One the funniest script ever committed to celluloid - exceeded only by Strangelove, Spinal Tap and Lebowski! Lemmon and Matthau are best friends: obsessive compulsive Felix and sloppy, irresponsible Oscar. Oscar's wife has already left him because he is impossible to live with due to his irresponsible attitude. Felix's wife leaves him at the start of the movie, and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with poker buddy Oscar. Thats when the fun begins.

The entire script is brilliant and filled with brilliant one-liners. You are probably already familiar with the "F.U." joke but it still works brilliantly due to Matthau's comic timing.

My favorite moments are when Lemmon tries to clear his sinus in the diner and when the Pigeon sisters are being charmed by a very suave Matthau and Lemmon is totally out of his element. This one requires repeat viewings!@@@1 -THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE (Emilio Miraglia - Italy 1971).

I only watched this delirious piece of Euro-tosh in the way of Alpha Video's dreadful DVD-release (looks like an extremely bad video-transfer), but from what I saw, not nearly interesting enough to purchase No Shame's recent DVD-release. Considering their excellent track record, it will undoubtedly be a major improvement over all previous releases. And don't pay attention to the ridiculous cover shown here, it's not taken from this film (some girl holding the head of a Jim Carrey look-a-like).

Spaghetti Western star Anthony Steffen sports a hip hairdo and assumes the role of Lord Alan Cunningham, a man haunted by the memory of his dead wife Evelyn. This leads to a nervous breakdown which has him being retained in a psychiatric clinic. Once released, Cunningham channels this trauma by taking redheaded prostitutes to his countryside castle, subjecting them to vicious acts of torture. His doctor and friend, Richard Timberlane (what do you mean, Italian horror names sound "made up?"), advises him to forget the past and remarry but Cunningham is obsessed with Evelyn and even organizes a séance at the castle. Eventually, after killing some more girls, he meets Gladys, another redhead, and marries her almost immediately, but the arrival of his new wife spawns a series of sinister events. Bloodthirsty creatures strike at Sir Alan's family, killing them off one by one. Becoming more distraught, Cunningham visits Evelyn's tomb and discovers it to be empty. Soon, a number of "outsiders" begin to suspect something fishy is going on in the castle and Lord Cunningham's treatment might not have been that successful after all.

Director Emilio Miraglia tries to blend Gothic horror with Giallo conventions with limited success. As usual, not the slightest effort was made to convince audiences the film is set in England. The cars drive on the right side of the road, everyone looks very Mediterranean and the castle (and the rest of the architecture) is patently Italian. This is common practice in Italian horror, but sometimes they just take this a little too far. The bad print made this even slightly bearable, since it's so dark, you couldn't see much of the surroundings anyway. But, then again, this is the kind of film where anything can happen in the name of exploitation and depicting reality isn't really the issue. A large part consists of sado-masochistic torture scenes in the castle torture chamber, but most of the time, Anthony Steffen hams his way through this and shows some horrible over-acting. I guess it all depends on your state of mind and this can be a fun piece of nonsense if you're in the right mood. I just couldn't take it, at least not with the print I watched. A pleasant score though by Bruno Nicolai which combines easy-listening tunes with some psychedelic rock numbers.

Camera Obscura --- 4/10@@@0 -It's very funny. It has a great cast who each give great performances. Especially Sally Field and Kevin Kline. It's a well written screenplay by Andrew Bergman (Honeymoon In Vegas). I don't like soap operas, even though I never watch them. But I do love this film because it's so crazy and off the wall, that it beats the hell out of any stupid soap that they have on daytime television. In my opinion, it's the best film of 1991.@@@1 -never before has a film driven me to write a review but this was just dire.i stuck with it trying to find what it was about this film that made snoop pick it as his first serious role but frankly it was a poor choice.maybe this made a good book but it certainly did not work for me as a film.i found it unbelievable,lacking atmosphere and i found many of the scenes hideously stilted.a musical maestro he may be but a serious actor snoop ain't.the acting by Dylan mcdermott and rose byrne was passable but not enough to carry a weak plot with feeble dialogue. perhaps i have just entirely missed the point but to me it didn't fit into any genre,it didn't elicit any empathy with the characters nor did it create any suspense,in fact i found myself praying for the end and quelling a deep desire to slap all three of the main characters!@@@0 -Simon's best comedy is superbly crafted by director Gene Saks and given life by the immense talents of Lemmon and Matthau. No one delivers these lines better. No one times them better. Nobody does it better.@@@1 -Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.

The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.

All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.

The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the "rising from the grave sequence" is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some.@@@0 -This cordial comedy confronts a few bizarre characters. Especially, of course, the two leading characters. Jack Lemmon plays Felix, a hypochondriac whose wife lost him because she couldn't stand his cleaning and cooking attacks any longer. So he tries to kill himself but every attempt fails. Walter Matthau plays Oscar, his friend, an untidy, unreliable sports-reporter who lives in divorce from his ex-wife in a bachelor apartment. He offers his distressed friend Felix a new home in his apartment. And soon the trouble begins because two such contrary characters can't live together for a long time. Felix turns Oscar's disorderly flat into a clean exhibition flat. He cleans and cooks the whole time. After a short while, Oscar feels persecution mania ... Filmed in a theatrical way and excellent acted. Above all, Jack Lemmon's play is wonderful. He is the perfect clown. He makes us laugh but in a tragi-comic way. Look for the wonderful scene when both men invite their two female neighbours for supper, because Oscar has to touch something more softer than a bowling-ball. While he is preparing the drinks, Felix sits with the two young ladies in the living-room. To get out of this embarrassing situation, he starts to talk about the weather. A minute later, he changes the subject and talks about his ex-wife and children. Suddenly he begins to weep and when Oscar comes back with the drinks, there are three weeping people in the living-room. The film is full of such amusing and at the same time touching scenes. An intelligent, entertaining comedy with much heart. 10 out of 10!@@@1 -Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.

But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.

So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.

And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...

'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much.@@@0 -I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.

Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.

I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.

Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.

Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time.@@@1 -Wealthy widower Anthony Steffen (as Alan Cunningham) is a sadomasochistic lover, and British Lord. He brings sexy red-haired women to his castle, where he whips and murders them. Black-booted stripper Erika Blanc (as Susie) gets away, temporarily. Mr. Steffen is haunted by wife "Evelyn", who died in childbirth. As therapy, he decides to marry again, after meeting pretty blonde Marina Malfatti (as Gladys). By the end of the movie, they will have had to dig a few more graves. "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is great title, at least.

** La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla tomba (1971) Emilio Miraglia ~ Anthony Steffen, Marina Malfatti, Erika Blanc@@@0 -I saw this many years after the television series and, initially, I didn't care for it. Then, as my memory of the series receded with the passage of time, I watched again, and found it absolutely hilarious. Based on the stage play by Neil Simon, it has not been 'opened out' much for the big screen, and that's one of its strengths. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are brilliant as Oscar and Felix, and the supporting cast are wonderful, particularly John Fielder as 'Vinnie'. Even now, certain moments can reduce me to tears of laughter - Felix interrupting Oscar in the middle of a ball game with a dinner request, Oscar cracking up and chasing Felix around the apartment, the giggling 'Pigeon Sisters' brought low by Felix's sob stories, and of course, the legendary cafeteria scene ( later ripped off by Nora Ephron's 'When Harry Met Sally' ). Razor-sharp dialogue too. When the boys think Felix has taken an overdose, Oscar says: "They could be vitamins! He could be the healthiest one in the room!". Fantastic!@@@1 -This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.@@@0 -I have seen this film many times and I like all bad teachers want to give it ten out of ten but feel that it would be unfair to other good films. However, I do think that this is one of those rare gems: a perfect comedy. It is I would venture one of the greatest comic films of all times. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly matched and mismatched. The script is so sharp that you need to staunch the bleeding. The story is well known and has already been described in other comments. The two leads give extraordinary performances, the girls are superb and the situations are side-splittingly funny. Not one swear-word in sight (mark that Hollywood, you don't have to swear to be funny, you have to be witty) and the move from stage to film is seamless. They don't make'em like this any more. Timeless.@@@1 -Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.@@@0 -SPOILERS

In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, "Hell is other people". In "The Odd Couple", Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau demonstrate just how accurate this can be. As Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison, Lemmon and Matthau respectively create two good friends who decide to live together. As the two begin to slowly grow more and more frustrated with each other, the laughs come thick and fast, before Felix departs, leaving Oscar a changed and more cleanly individual.

Jack Lemmon as Ungar is absolutely superb as the neurotic, cleaning obsessed divorcee coping with life as a single man. Walter Matthau in contrast to Lemmon's character is equally as good as the slobbish sports writer who simply wants to play poker to earn money for his child benefits.

Lemmon and Matthau are magnificant in their selected parts, to some degree dependent upon the beautiful script by Neil Simon, and simultaneously because they work well as a team. As two friends who are inherently different in lifestyles, although similar in relationships with ex-wives and children, these two, late, great actors create a partnership which is practically impossible to recreate. So great in fact, that the world screamed out so much for something similar, that two years before Matthau's death and three before Lemmon's, the characters were reunited in an inferior sequel. This idea, whilst following Hollywood's irritating obsession with sequels, might have worked to a certain degree, but at the same time, it could never come close to replicating the genius of this original film.

Ultimately it's not really possible to say anything else. With Simon's amazing script, filled with humour and laughter, the creators of this film were already onto a hit. The casting of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison though, is the most important part of this film. "The Odd Couple", with it's traditional soundtrack (which even gained a tribute in "The Simpsons"), it's excellent script and it's genius leading men, is a tribute to cinema and a feature for history to remember.@@@1 -So far after week two of "The lone of Beauty" I am a little disappointed.

Some of the acting is good, as long as we except that it is only drama.

I am unsure how people can feel that this FICTIONAL DRAMA is "factual" coverage of the "Thatcher" years - it is okay as drama, but I feel the award winning book is still much better.

I Wonder if the BBC will ever give us the follow up and the next part of the drama and the years that follow with "Things Can Only Get Better" finishing with 2006 and the Fact that we are still waiting! with that promise from a Government that is full of sleaze.@@@0 -A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.

A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.

PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.@@@1 -Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....

The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.

Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I.

The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant.@@@0 -In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.

The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.

It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.

Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.

Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.

Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set!

It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time.@@@1 -I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid.@@@0 -One of the many Merrie Melodies cartoons that entertained American moviegoers during WWII, Bob Clampett's "An Itch in Time" portrays a hobo flea settling on Elmer Fudd's dog. The little guy turns into a real sadist while making a home on the dog's back, but Elmer warns the dog: "One more scwatch and I'll give you a bath!" Meanwhile, the flea is setting up dynamite on the dog!* And that's not the end! I noticed that in one scene, Elmer is reading a comic book featuring Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig. Obviously, Elmer and Bugs frequently co-starred but Elmer never co-starred with Porky (unless you count the very short "Any Bonds Today?"). But to me, the thought of Elmer reading about these other famous characters from his same genre stresses the metaphysical nature of his world, as though he knew of their existence within his universe even though they don't appear in this cartoon.

Of course, I'm probably going too far in my analysis. I'm sure that the cartoon was intended as pure entertainment, and it certainly entertains. As for the "I might get to like this" line, it sounds as though that was something that the censors wouldn't have allowed but somehow missed; I, for one, don't actually know what it was supposed to sound like. Was it something sexual? As for the end, had I thought that I'd seen everything, I would have been tempted to look for more, rather than do what the cat did (although it was a neat trick).

*The guys behind these cartoons sure had a thing for TNT, didn't they?@@@1 -This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.

Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.

While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.

Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.

Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.@@@0 -Bob Clampett's 'An Itch in Time' milks seven minutes of crazy action out of a very small premise. Elmer Fudd tells his dog that if he scratches himself just once more that he will be given a dreaded bath. Unfortunately for the dog, a relentless flea makes it all but impossible to stop from scratching. The cartoon switches between the flea's progress inside the dog's fur and the dog's desperate attempts to cope with it. In a great sequence that really captures the frustration of an itch that can't be scratched, the dog changes colour from brown to blue to red to polka dotted to plaid! It sounds ludicrously surreal but it perfectly evokes the indescribable feeling of an itch in a way only Clampett could. There are several other elements which make 'An Itch in Time' pure Clampett. There's the grotesque concept itself, which leads to some graphic scenes of the flea munching on the dog's flesh. There's the unrestrained violence that rears its head in any scene featuring the cat. Most notably, there's the dirty jokes including a huge shot of the dog's behind which causes the flea to wolf-whistle and a hysterical sequence in which the dog attempts to scratch himself by dragging his backside along the floor. He momentarily breaks off to address the audience: "Hey, I better cut this out. I may get to like it"! With a very limited concept, Clampett manages to make 'An Itch in Time' a unique, minutiae-based cartoon. Like an early episode of 'Seinfeld', 'An Itch in Time' is practically about nothing but very funny with it.@@@1 -Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.@@@0 -Years ago I did follow a soap on TV. So I was curious about this movie, and I was so rewarded for finding it. It's a marvelous spoof of soaps, with jealousies, the usual actors' insecurities, and all sorts of lovely excesses. But more than anything - an amazing cast and an incredible script. How did someone get all those top-notch actors to play in such a silly sort of movie? And how did this little movie get writers to write the perfect lines? I never hear anyone talk about this movie or even admit hearing of it, but it's marvelous and I highly recommend seeing it. Sometimes I'll throw it on while doing housecleaning, and end up sitting on the couch, watching, laughing and thoroughly enjoying the whole wonderful thing. Many congrats to all who made it.@@@1 -Watching The Tenants has been a interesting experience for me. It is the first film I have ever seen where I have shuttled at speed through parts of the (non)action - and I can normally watch anything from turgid action movies to Serbo-Croat indie and find them fascinating.

The Tenants is frustratingly sluggish and over-orchestrated. One of the main problems of the script is there is little realistic character dialogue, apart from the set pieces where characters 'collide' in a very structured setting (to make this work, the film needed to feel more conceptual, which it didn't). This leads to a lack of realistic character development; everyone seems two-dimensional.

The worse for this is the character of Bill Spear, aka Snoop Dogg. I found his characterization very uncomfortable and very unsympathetic. At one point, I even stopped the film because I got so annoyed by the character's aggressive, violent and monotonal delivery, the lack of any other personality layer apart from that of the reactionary "on" switch (which gets really predictable after a while) and I so desperately wanted him to have some redeeming qualities. However, one reason for this jar might be the nebulous time scape of the film (supposedly 70s, it feels and looks more early noughties). If it had been more securely fixed in the 70s, his character might have seemed more understandable.

The lighting of the film was also awkward. All the way through, the soundtrack attempts to provide a certain gritty, jazz-infused atmosphere that just did not come off, largely because the set was too well-lit.

The Tenants, to me, is an unbelievable film. It doesn't depict real people or propose any interesting ways of thinking about race, identity or the life of a writer, be they white or black.

Strangely, I came away with the feeling that this project needed David Lynch; his eerie, clastrophobic and obsessive look and feel would have lifted both the actors and the script into something quite remarkable.@@@0 -Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name "A. Flea" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming "T- Bone!" He then sings, "There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!")

That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea.

The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal!@@@1 -the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end.@@@0 -`An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.'@@@1 -This film is just another distortion, among many distortions, on the so-called 'sins of consumerism'. Please note that 'Reverend Billy', an actor (Bill Talen), is nothing more than a bureaucrat against the 'sins of consumerism'. We might want to ask are questions, like: What does 'Reverend Billy' do for a living? How does he make his money? Does he make his living off his 'tax-deductible' organization? How does the Internal Revenue justify this as a 'tax-deductible' church or organization?

Everyone knows that Christmas is commercialized, but it affords one day out of a whole year in which people have an opportunity to be charitable, and allows a significant number of people to spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. Everyone is not charitable. Everyone does not spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. But, holidays and vacation time give people that chance and opportunity. Yes, America does have more than its share of problems--but, with perseverance, Americans have and always make it through great difficulties. And, even in times of strife, America has proved itself to be the greatest country in the world. That happens when Americans pull together and unite, rather than to separate and divide. Yes, there are problems with corporations and monopolies, but it will take Americans to bring back the small businesses, along with the ethics to responsibly care for people living in our individual communities. Yes, globalization has brought us its share of problems, but it will take Americans to bring production back to America. Americans and the U.S. government need to learn how to stay on a budget, no matter how large or small it may be, and we must stop our dependence on credit. Our over-reliance on credit will make, and keep us poor, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to buy--but, if we buy less, we will rely less on credit. And, if we are able to save, even a small amount of money, we will have money for a rainy day. Not to say that, as Americans, we will gain an equal share of wealth. Wealth is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed. But, stratification teaches us that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of America's wealth. There is a good proximity that you or I can reach the level of the upper, middle class. And, who knows what can happen from there?!? Be positive, work hard--and, at the very least, you and I will be able to reach at least some (if not all) of our dreams. In life, nothing is guaranteed, but we always have that something to reach for. And, if you or I don't have dreams, we might as well be dead. In America, there is always room for plenty of hopes and dreams. As individuals, we are a part of the pack, but we always can become the leader of the pack.

It has always been my experience that churches and religion do offer nothing more than additional distortions, but I pay dignity and give respect to people with other beliefs, values, and perspectives. But, as far as the distortions expressed, within this film, I do not have any faith in such beliefs, values, and perspectives. I rank this film with a 1 out of 10--but, in all honesty and truth, this film deserves a zero. This film has no integrity, and I cannot recommend it.@@@0 -"In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first "national" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the "Windy City" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic."

The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.

Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.

Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), "Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard." If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?

Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany.

The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.

The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101@@@1 -Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.@@@0 -I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).

Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.

However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the "Swallow" and "Gunnerside" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.

The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history.@@@1 -I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!

Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.

If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!

I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.

Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling.@@@0 -This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....

This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.

This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!

If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!@@@1 -Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.

And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?

As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.

I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.

Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.

@@@0 -by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.

Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.

So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost.@@@1 -I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.

This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.@@@0 +Very nicely done movie. It does stay in your memory. Better billed as a romance than flying or war, altho the flying parts are realistic and almost error free. Flying buffs like myself will enjoy this movie even if attracted by the airplanes, unless they have no sensitivity or have never been in love.

Fun watching early Crowe. He is good and exudes charm. His reading of "High Flight" is superb.

cheers, Boom@@@1 +There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing this movie.@@@0 +This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.

Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare.@@@1 +This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.@@@0 +Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say "Keko Mask: Unknown" while the actor names are listed!

The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: "I've never seen such a beautiful vagina" and "Now I can die in peace." This film is totally fantastic!!

There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says "Hey there's no fog in it!" I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.

This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal?@@@1 +What a pathetic movie.

I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.

Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.

Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.@@@0 +I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?@@@1 +The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said "Uh oh, this is running too long," and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it.@@@0 +Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.

The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.@@@1 +As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment@@@0 +Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick!@@@1 +I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.@@@0 +no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.@@@1 +Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.@@@0 +Well this movie was probobly one of the funniest scary movie i have ever seen. The effects are so bad you just have to laugh, and the acting, well lets say its no mel gibson. But Gary Browning who plays an police officer is so damn bad, he becomes good. I dont know how but he him self makes this movie a 10. You must see it if your in to horror/slash movies cause its bloody and funny at the same time. Killer movie.@@@1 +This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.

This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.

But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.@@@0 +Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.

Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!

Best lines in the movie:

Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...

Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.

Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!

LOL!@@@1 +Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.@@@0 +Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie "san pedro, California" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach "Queen Mary" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor@@@1 +I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.@@@0 +One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.

Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.

A great look at life in the late 40's.

@@@1 +There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.@@@0 +I borrowed this movie despite its extremely low rating, because I wanted to see how the crew manages to animate the presence of multiple worlds. As a matter of fact, they didn't - at least, so its seems. Some cameo appearance cut rather clumsily into the movie - that's it, this is what the majority of viewers think. However, the surprise comes at the end, and unfortunately then, when probably most of the viewers have already stopped this movie. I was also astonished when I saw that the Brazilian-Portuguese title of this movie means "Voyage into Death". This is THE spoiler.

That this movie is about a young girl who goes ALONE onto this boat (on reasons that are completely unclear), you understand only in the last 5 minutes. When you start the movie with the English title "Haunted Boat" in your head, you clearly think that the cameo appearances of strange figures are the "ghosts". But in reality, this movie is not like most other horror movies told from the distant writer-watcher perspective who can at almost any time differentiate between different levels of reality, it is told from the perspective of the young girl. We see her not alone, but together with the four friends because SHE sees them. We do not see that she is alone. So, the parallel worlds are not the cameo appearances flickering into the picture-stream, but the main story! We have at least two parallel worlds: The world in which the girl is and the world in which the 4 friends are. An intrusion of a third world is probably the young man with the medical skills who comes for a short time on the boat.

I cannot get rid of the deep conviction that with this movie, the movie-makers "cheated" an audience of several thousand people by letting them believe that what they have done is more or less a sophomore film-student elaborate with hastily "chosen" pseudo-actors that have met just the night before the start of the shooting in a dump after at least twelve beers. How mistaken can one be! But in addition to this big surprise which one learns only in the very last minutes, the end that follows gives another surprise. The girl is saved by a crew in a helicopter and another boat. When she has recovered from her shock, she visits again the place at the harbor where she ascended the boat together with the four friends. And there they are again! They wave her to them from the boat which has already taken off shore. She jumps into the water, arrives at the boat - and they are away. Miraculously beautiful. It remembers me a bit to the end of a poem by a Rhetoromance writer: When I awoke, I saw Death standing at my bed. But I closed my eyes. When I opened them again - he was gone.@@@1 +What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.

It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.

Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.@@@0 +I also saw this upon its release in '56, and have been struck since then with its final scene. If this is an answer to 'High Noon,' then it's an apt and apposite response. The notion that, as this string is headed, "The town comes together" is a much stronger message than the lonely personal heroism of 'High Noon.' In this theme, 'Concho' is a phenomenal precursor of one my other all-time favorites, 'The Magnificent Seven.' Both Sinatra and Conrad give impressive and convincing performances, especially Sinatra's transformation from bullying kid brother to liberating town savior. I can only hope that at some point all the friends and family on whom over the years I've inflicted my affection for this movie will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves.@@@1 +I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.@@@0 +I was lucky enough to get to see this film many years ago in England. I've seen hundreds of films since,but I've never forgotten this one.Although Sinatra was playing a not very endearing character,he was excellent in the role.A lot of people seem to think that he did'nt really come into his own until his role in "From Here To Eternity" but in my opinion he was magnificent in Concho.The other role that sticks in my mind is that of William Conrad.I'd never see or heard of him before this film. Conrad plays a terrific part in this film.I remember his deep and gravelly voice and he uses it beautifully to enhance the few words he speaks with a menace that sets the tone of his character.Also I remember the music, that both introduces Conrad and and seems to surround him whenever he appears.An excellent film and my only disappointment was that I never ever got the chance to see it again. It seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. I see in the titles that it says that the film is in black and white but when I saw it was indeed in full color, I remember Sinatra's blue shirt.@@@1 +Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.

The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.

Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.@@@0 +I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.

When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.

Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.

Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.

Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.

However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.@@@1 +I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.@@@0 +"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies).@@@1 +This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.@@@0 +Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).

Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.

I savour "moments", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...

Hugely enjoyable.@@@1 +What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.@@@0 +I have rarely emerged from viewing a film with such a warm, happy feeling. I felt as if I had been out with really good friends and had a wonderful time! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting was superb, although I would have to mention Bill Nye in particular as giving an absolutely faultless performance. Bill is an excellent actor and would love to see him in more films. Timothy Spall and Jimmy Nail are also favourites and always love to see them as they give such a solid performance. And Billy Connolly, as always, totally gorgeous. It was a wonderful ensemble performance from all concerned. Such a refreshing experience to see a well-written, superbly acted and good-looking movie.@@@1 +I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!@@@0 +Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.@@@1 +This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison – his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.@@@0 +wonderful movie with good story great humour (some great one-liners) and a soundtrack to die for.

i've seen it 3 times so far.

the american audiences are going to love it.@@@1 +That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.

'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.

It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.

All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.@@@0 +I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great.@@@1 +Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.

A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.

I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.

I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been@@@0 +Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.@@@1 +I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievable

WARNING SPOILERISH

It's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.

When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing.

Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.

The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.

As for the ridiculous ending….

In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.

0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.@@@0 +I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :)@@@1 +1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.@@@0 +An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.@@@1 +My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it!

@@@0 +If you like Deep Purple, you will enjoy in this excellent movie with Stephen Rea in main role. The story is about the most famous rock group back there in 70s, Strange Fruits, and they decided to play together again. But, of course, there is going to be lots of problem during theirs concerts. Jimmy Nail and Bill Nighy are great, and song "The Flame Still Burns" is perfect. You have to watch it.@@@1 +Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you.

Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once.

2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.@@@0 +This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since "Leaving Las Vegas" I was never so moved by a movie.@@@1 +I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.@@@0 +I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10@@@1 +Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10@@@0 +I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!@@@1 +Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half

hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to

happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their

seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when

the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they

mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill

for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only

got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time.

Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous

hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with

the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one

attractive cast member to remember.@@@0 +I thought this movie was fantastic. It was hilarious. Kinda reminded me of Spinal Tap. This is a must see for any fan of 70's rock. (I hope me and my friends aren't like that in twenty years!)

Bill Nighy gives an excellent performance as the off kilter lead singer trying to recapture that old spirit,

Stephen Rea fits perfectly into the movie as the glue trying to hold the band together, but not succeeding well.

If you love music, and were ever in a band, this movie is definitely for you. You won't regret seeing this movie. I know I don't. Even my family found it funny, and that's saying something.@@@1 +"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?

Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.

"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.@@@0 +As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.@@@1 +I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.

Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...

...well anything to be honest@@@0 +I agree with what "veinbreaker" wrote with regards to the "Ahhhh" feeling you get at the end of this movie. I absolutely loved the locations they chose to film, the songs were well written and interesting, especially the psychedelic sounding track on which Hans Matheson sings. It's trippy. Nighy was fab in his role, Nail "nailed" it, Beano was the typical drummer, and Rea kept it together. Bruce Robinson was awesome. Helena was a lovely girlfriend. But I felt Juliet Aubrey's performance was gorgeous. The scenes between Aubrey & Robinson killed me! Perfectly played and the music behind the scene was spot on! Too bad not many more musicians have checked this movie out! They ought to!I've told all my musician friends. great quote by Jimmy Nail's character: "it's supposed to be rock & roll, not the Phantom of the f*****g opera!"@@@1 +The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.

Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'.

You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.@@@0 +I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.

The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.

This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.

And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World."

Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.

Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem.@@@1 +This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.

This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.@@@0 +Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, "The Money Pit".

If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see.@@@1 +This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers).

A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".

It's just bad.@@@0 +In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.

One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.

The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too.@@@1 +I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.

WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.

Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.@@@0 +If you need cheering up on a cold weekday evening, this is the film for you! Excellent script and perfectly cast actors. I especially loved Ray psyching himself up in front of the mirror before gigs - inspired!@@@1 +It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.

What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!

How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered.@@@0 +So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all.@@@1 +Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.

The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction.

However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)

Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.

Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)

This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.

The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!

What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.

It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...@@@0 +What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.

Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.

Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.

Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.

It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.

Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work.@@@1 +This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.

Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!@@@0 +This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended..@@@1 +Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.

Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.

The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.

It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.

It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.

I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.

Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.@@@0 +> Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (
> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since.@@@1 +It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.

It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.

So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.

I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood.@@@0 +The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.

Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's.@@@1 +Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.@@@0 +I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever!@@@1 +The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.

The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.

As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.@@@0 +...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.

The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.

A small delight, and thanks for the memory.

Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road)@@@1 +By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.@@@0 +This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond.@@@1 +Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.@@@0 +Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr..

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure.@@@1 +I rented this DVD for two reasons. A cast of great actors, and the director, even though Robert Altman can be hit or miss. In this case, it was a big miss. Altman's attempt at creating suspense fell on its keester. After seeing Kenneth Branagh in a good film like "Dead Again", I didn't think he could possibly contribute to such a turkey, and I hope it didn't ruin his reputation. Robert Duvall seems to have fallen the way of most one-time Oscar winners. On a downward spiral that includes acting in eating-money films such as this one. Duvall was once a great actor in excellent films, even though his best performance was not "Tender Mercies", but "The Great Santini". This movie was truly a big waste of time. I give it a 2 out of 10.@@@0 +What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?

Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.

Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.

Bye!@@@1 +This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.

Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.

In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.@@@0 +I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.

It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.

I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?

My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience.@@@1 +This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.

I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture.

After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.

After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.

We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly.

The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)

You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.@@@0 +Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties.

How could that happen? What drove me into addiction?

OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce.

Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.

Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in "Love Actually", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is.

Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing "All Over The World", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage.

It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there.

Got Still Crazy... anyone?@@@1 +This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs.@@@0 +This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.

Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.

Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.

The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.

Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.

Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.

As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.

The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...

Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts...@@@1 +...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.@@@0 +This series could very well be the best Britcom ever, and that is saying a great deal, considering the competitors (Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbours, to name just two).

What made Butterflies so superior, even to the best of the best, is that it did not just exemplify great, classic, classy and intelligent comedy, but it also expanded horizons, reflecting - flawlessly, gently, and at every detail - the great social change that was occurring in Britain at the time.

I remember watching this show as a teenager and being in awe of everything about it. The lifestyle depicted was remarkable in itself. This was the first time I saw real people using cordless phones. And the wardrobe of all the characters was far removed from the goofy seventies attire still seen in North America at the time. Then there were the decors, shop fronts, cars. These people - even the layabout sons, with their philosophical approach to life and epigrammatic humor - were sophisticated. They were examples of the "New Europeans" that would come to have an impact on life and style throughout the world in the coming decade (1980s).

Of course, the premise was strange and fantastic. The idea that someone who was living the suburban dream could be so discontent and restless was revolutionary, particularly to North Americans for whom happiness was always defined as money and things (sure the situation was depicted in American movies and TV, but not with the intensity of Butterflies or the movie Montenegro). And, if the premise was not surprising enough, the means by which it was expressed took it to the extreme. A potential affair that was not really about sex, or even romance? Butterflies dazzled many, but it must have left some people smacking their foreheads in disbelief... at the time anyway.

Butterflies turned out to be - in so many ways - prophetic. It documented, ahead of its time - post-modern ennui, all-pervasive lifestyle, the notion of emotional infidelity, and generational disconnect and male discontent (portrayed perfectly by the strained father-son relationships). It is too bad this series has not been rediscovered in a big way, and all those involved given credit for creating a meaningful snapshot of a certain time and place, and foreseeing all the slickness and angst that was to come.@@@1 +Cradle of Fear

This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".

This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge.

The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play.

As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.

What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.

Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.@@@0 +Looking back over the past 28 years (since my first exposure to the show), all i can say is: Once you get it-it will stay with you forever. I remember my initial reaction being: 1) annoyingly overacted, 2)under produced 3) unlikeable characters

Well, two years later I watched some episodes again and didn't find it nearly as annoying. A year later I was able to catch the entire series from the beginning and quickly became engrossed in it's bittersweet tale of human fault and perspectives on happiness. Yes, the show has a style that is not for everybody, and I'm sure the dated production value would be hard to deal with now. But, I still think about the show at least once a month with a vague teary eyed longing for what seemed like simpler times...

BTW I am a married man...(for all who think this is a show for females)@@@1 +This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?@@@0 +British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type.

The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.

The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies.@@@1 +Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.

But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.

Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.

To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.

My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.@@@0 +Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.

In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...

Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.

(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)@@@1 +Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.@@@0 +enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there.@@@1 +I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................@@@0 +Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right.@@@1 +This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha.@@@0 +This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10.@@@1 +Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.@@@0 +This isn't as violent as I was expecting which makes the violent scenes appear all the more brutal and effective.

There are a lot of twists and turns and back stabbing and double crossing all the way through the film making it hard to know who's side a particular character is on.

The plot is pacey with some good dialogue and character development and gives an interesting view of the workings of the Triad gang it follows.

The violence when it comes is brutal, no guns or martial art scenes with special effects, this is believable in your face violence and for all the dialogue you are never allowed forget that the Triad is a violent criminal organisation.

The ending is surprising but thoroughly consistent and believable.@@@1 +This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.@@@0 +There can be no denying that Hak Se Wui (Election in English) is a well made and well thought out film. The film uses numerous clever pieces of identification all the time playing with modernity yet sticking to tradition – a theme played with throughout the film Where John Woo's Hong Kong films are action packed and over the top in their explosive content as seen in Hard Boiled (1992) and when Hong Kong films do settle down into rhythms of telling the story from the 'bad' point of view, they can sometimes stutter and just become merely unmemorable, a good example being City on Fire (1987).

Election is a film that is memorable for the sheer fact of its unpredictable scenes, spontaneous action and violence that are done in a realistic and tasteful (if that's the right word) manner as well as the clever little 'in pieces' of film-making. It's difficult to spot during the viewing but Election is really constructed in a kind of three act structure: there is the first point of concern involving the actual election and whoever is voted in is voted in – not everyone likes the decision but what the Uncles say, goes. The second act is the retrieving of the ancient baton from China that tradition demands must be present during the inauguration with the final third the aftermath of the inauguration and certain characters coming up with their own ideas on how the Triads should and could be run. Needless to say; certain events and twists occur during each of the three thirds, some are small and immaterial whereas some are much larger and spectacular.

Election does have some faults with the majority coming in the opening third. Trying to kill off time surrounding an election that only takes a few minutes to complete was clearly a hard task for the writers and filmmakers and that shows at numerous points. I got the feeling that a certain scene was just starting to go somewhere before it was interrupted by the police and then everyone gets arrested. This happens a few times: a fight breaks out in a restaurant but the police are there and everyone is arrested; there's a secret meeting about the baton between the Triads but the police show up and everyone gets arrested; some other Triads are having a pre-election talk but the police show up and guess what? You know.

Once the film gets out of that rut that I thought it would, it uses a sacred baton as a plot device to get everybody moving. The baton spawns some good fight scenes such as the chasing of a truck after it's been hotwired, another chase involving a motorbike and a kung-fu fight with a load of melee weapons in a street – the scenes are unpredictable, realistic and violent but like I said, they are in a 'tasteful' manner. Where Election really soars is its attention to that fine detail. When the Triads are in jail, the bars are covered with wire suggesting they're all animals in cages as that's how they behave on the outside when in conflict. Another fine piece of attention to detail is the way the Uncles toast using tea and not alcohol, elevating themselves above other head gangsters who'd use champagne (The Long Good Friday) and also referencing Chinese tradition of drinking tea to celebrate or commemorate.

Election is a good film that is structured well enough to enjoy and a film that has fantastic mise-en-scene as you look at what's going on. Some of the indoor settings and the clothing as well as the buckets of style that is poured on as the search and chase for the baton intensifies. The inauguration is like another short film entirely and very well integrated into the film; hinting at Chinese tradition in the process. I feel the best scene is the ending scene as it sums it up perfectly: two shifty characters fishing and debating the ruling of the Triads all the while remaining realistic, unpredictable and violent: in a tasteful manner, of course.@@@1 +Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.

As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.@@@0 +Election is a Chinese mob movie, or triads in this case. Every two years an election is held to decide on a new leader, and at first it seems a toss up between Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai, or as I know him, "The Other Tony Leung") and Lok (Simon Yam, who was Judge in Full Contact!). Though once Lok wins, Big D refuses to accept the choice and goes to whatever lengths he can to secure recognition as the new leader. Unlike any other Asian film I watch featuring gangsters, this one is not an action movie. It has its bloody moments, when necessary, as in Goodfellas, but it's basically just a really effective drama. There are a lot of characters, which is really hard to keep track of, but I think that plays into the craziness of it all a bit. A 100-year-old baton, which is the symbol of power I mentioned before, changes hands several times before things settle down. And though it may appear that the film ends at the 65 or 70-minute mark, there are still a couple big surprises waiting. Simon Yam was my favorite character here and sort of anchors the picture.

Election was quite the award winner at last year's Hong Kong Film Awards, winning for best actor (Tony Leung), best picture, best director (Johnny To, who did Heroic Trio!!), and best screenplay. It also had nominations for cinematography, editing, film score (which I loved), and three more acting performances (including Yam).@@@1 +I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.

I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors – never!

He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.

Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?

He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.

Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them.@@@0 +First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.

In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.

Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.

While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.

Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.

My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more.

Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.@@@1 +LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................

This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................

Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................

Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........

The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................

A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT@@@0 +It might be a little erroneous to open a review by describing a film in terms of other films, but I think it's the best way to give an approximation of the place Election occupies in the gangster genre arena. It works somewhere in between The Godfather and Kinji Fukasaku's yakuza opus The Yakuza Papers (AKA Battles Without Honour and Humanity), in that it is simultaneously both romanticized and realistic, dark and gritty. But it's also a Johnnie To film, and as such it carries the distinct touch of the Hong Kong auteur.

Every two years the HK Triad elects a new boss. Only this time one of the candidates is not overly happy with the result so he decides to take matters into his own hands much to the dismay of the rest of the Triads and the police. That's the story in a nutshell but rest assured it has a lot more going for it than that. As in The Yakuza Papers, there's a great deal of scheming, back-stabbing and forming and switching of allegiances (sometimes all it takes is a phone call - in one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in recent time) which might not necessarily make for deep drama but makes for an interesting plot and good character conflict. Fans of the gangster genre are likely to appreciate it in that aspect. Election is not as action-oriented as one might expect; although it IS violent. And I'm not talking about the glossy, glamour version of Hollywood violence. This is dark and grim. To's camera lingers in the scenes of people being brutalized in ways that reveal both the humanity and inhumanity of the perpetrators and victims; after all violence IS an integral part of us whether we like it or not.

If you're familiar with To's style, then you should know what to expect. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate. The cinematography is great, slick and dark in equal measures, utilizing dark hues (brown, dark green and orange) while the smooth tracking shots add a vibrant quality to it. In the end, Election occupies a peculiar place. It's not exactly a character study and it's not an action-oriented gangster film. It explores a situation (the election and its aftermath), but does so in style, and is both realistic and romanticized (the Triad ceremonies in particular echo of an oriental Godfather).@@@1 +The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.

Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.

With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.@@@0 +This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East.

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.@@@1 +I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ??

**MAY BE SPOILER**

An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.

2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)@@@0 +Johnnie To's ELECTION has some cool music on the opening credits—and a nice opening credits' design too, a kaleidoscope of Chinese characters and those Asian mobsters solemnly taking an oath or uttering some sacred stuff; as a matter of fact the whole flick is nicely scored. I have found about To from Bishop Seraphim Sigrist and was quite eager to see a To movie. The one with which I began, ELECTION, is exciting and interesting, and only moderately violent by nowadays standards—moderately and also essentially violent; the story of an Asian godfather's scheming, it uses a puzzle play of elements, violent facts from the mobsters' lives, the race for the scepter, true details, and as with Coppola we are expected to believe that some of the morally glamorized mobsters are entitled and nice and likable. The performances are reasonably amusing and colorful.

ELECTION is well made in the enjoyable, somewhat careless style of the Hong Kong fare; the ending is bitter, true, straight and will scare the kids.@@@1 +Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.

To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.

Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.

I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!@@@0 +I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!@@@1 +This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...

Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!@@@0 +I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit.@@@1 +With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype.

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness.

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.@@@0 +The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.

The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.

Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...

Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.

Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.

To be continued...@@@1 +A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 – 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!

Just my opinion!

@@@0 +This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family.@@@1 +In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.

Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.

Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.

In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.@@@0 +Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.

Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.

Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.

I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).@@@1 +Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............

The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull.@@@0 +Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.

Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful.@@@1 +I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.

In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.

As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832.

At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.

The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully.

The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.

Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.

Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.@@@0 +Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.

To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.

While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.

While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.

This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.

Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.

Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie.@@@1 +Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck.@@@0 +This film really deserves more recognition than its getting. It really is a stunning and rich portrayal of blood ties, favours and allegiances within the crime world. The film is shot beautifully and delves into all you're classic crime themes such as betrayal and power. This film is a movie goers film, it requires attention and understanding and rewards fully in the end. It is the godfather of hong kong and is a welcome change rather than another wire frame fighting, martial arts epic which seems to be the major contribution to the cinema world from hong kong and china. It features an arrangement of great characters, actors and development although is fair to say I had to watch it twice just to nail what was happening with some of the characters due to their being so many interactions in the film. ALl in all 8/10 Great plot characters but there are characters that don't stand out enough and the music didn't really get me going and at times i felt it didn't sync well with the action(there is action by the way) so it loses some points for that.@@@1 +Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.

After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.

In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie.@@@0 +

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!@@@1 +I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.@@@0 +Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.

In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.

Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.

Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.

Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.

It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.@@@1 +Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".@@@0 +I was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.

This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.

The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.

When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film "Stab" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.

WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!

Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.

Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed!@@@1 +What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10@@@0 +I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.@@@1 +This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.@@@0 +Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.

With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.

Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.@@@1 +This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.

If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons.@@@0 +I have been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.

i give cut a 8 out of 10@@@1 +Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character…she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times.

I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd.@@@0 +There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.@@@1 +This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While featuring good actors the movie doesn't live up to the expectations. The most dramatic thing about this movie is the music, which pretty much sums up the movie: compensating for a bad and confusing storyline by having known-good actors, loud and dramatic music. It doesn't change the fact, that this is a very boring movie to watch. Earned itself a score of 1.@@@0 +It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.@@@1 +This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.@@@0 +"Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.@@@1 +My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie.

yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad...

Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.

*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!@@@0 +This is not a bad movie. It follows the new conventions of modern horror, that is the movie within a movie, the well known actress running for her life in the first scene. This movie takes the old convention of a psycho killer on he loose, and manage to do something new, and interesting with it. It is also always nice to see Molly Ringwald back for the attack.

So this might be an example of what the genre has become. Cut hits all the marks, and is actually scary in some parts. I liked it I gave it an eight.@@@1 +This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.

Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.@@@0 +This is surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable and well made, with some decent gore!. All the characters are decent, and the story is quite fun, plus Molly Ringwald played the annoying bitch extremely well. I bought this at a pawn shop for a 1$, and it was surprisingly worth it, and the special effects were pretty damn good for the budget, plus I loved the mask the killer wore as it was actually somewhat creepy. The finale was really cool, as I loved how they defeated the killer, and the ending while predictable was very amusing as well, plus all the characters except for Ringwald were surprisingly pretty likable!. It's decently made and written, and I thought it was quite creative and original at times as well, plus some of the death scenes were very impressive. This killer didn't mess around, and I loved it, and Slasher fans(like myself) should really enjoy this film, plus The opening was really wicked too, with them filming the movie!. This is a surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable,and well made, with some decent gore, and I say it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Kimble Rendall does a good! job here with solid camera work, using a creepy setting, good angles and keeping the film at a fast moving pace. The acting is solid!. Molly Ringwald plays the bitch extremely well,and I had troubles feeling sorry for her, after all she was supposed to be the heroine, she turned out better towards the end, but not by much, I'm surprised she decided to do this film, nonetheless she did an excellent job!. Frank Roberts is fantastic as the killer, he is menacing, creepy and had one hell of a mask, and this guy didn't mess around, he was fantastic!. Kylie Minogue plays a bitch very well in her small role. Jessica Napier is cute and does fine as the other heroine. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5@@@1 +This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.@@@0 +for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.@@@1 +In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.

But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.

Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...

And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.

However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.

Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.

2 out of 10@@@0 +Twelve years ago, production stopped on the slasher flick "Hot Blooded" since almost everyone on the set started dying. Now, a couple of film students have decided to finish the film, despite the fact that there's a rumor that the film is cursed. Well, they're about to find out that some curses are real.

When Scream was released, every country seemed to want to cash in on its success, even Australia. The concept, which today has been done to death (a slasher film within a slasher film) was at the time relatively cool and original. This movie was released right before Urban Legends: Final Cut and Scream 3 (well not in the US but in Australia) so it felt like the first movie with this concept. When Urban Legends 2 was released, most of us had all ready grown sick of the concept and since the movie wasn't even good, the movie flopped disastrously. Now, Cut is not the best slasher flick ever, and nor does it try to be. It knows that it's a rip-off, and they even cast a girl who looks like a blonde version of Neve Campbell in the starring role. But instead of trying to add some new and original twists to the story, they've decided to rip-off some 80s slasher flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" as well and surprisingly enough, this actually works. The killer is very creepy and that mask is just killer! And instead of trying to scare the audience to death, they've created a very good and creepy atmosphere which keeps us in suspense through most of the movie. There are a couple of plot holes in the movie though that I wasn't able to fully ignore, the ending being the biggest plot hole in the movie. Spoiler ahead; I mean, they burnt the only copy of the movie so where the hell did they find the print that they show in the final scene? It makes no sense I tell you. End of spoilers. All in all, Cut is a pretty creepy slasher flick with a silly story but I consider this to be one of the better Scream rip-offs that never made it big. I'm surprised that this one never got a sequel, but I guess it simply came out too late.

Suspenseful Australian slasher flick with very few scares. Cut is still a pretty neat slasher movie and I will have to recommend this one even though I consider the story to be quite silly since it's completely ludicrous.@@@1 +When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.

Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about?

The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.

"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap.@@@0 +When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.

Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".

Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?

This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.

By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.@@@1 +I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time.@@@0 +A horror movie is being shot and things aren't going well. It's about a masked killer. The director tells off the killer in front of the cast and crew. He goes crazy and kills two people. He's killed himself and the film is never finished. Twelve years later a bunch of film students decide to try and finish it--but there's a curse. People who try and finish it are killed themselves. The students ignore that. Guess what happens next?

The plot is old hat but this isn't bad...for what it is (a low budget slasher film). It's well-made with a young and fairly talented young cast. No one is great but no one is terrible either. It also avoids the obligatory (and needless) female nude scenes. It moves quickly, the gore is nice and bloody and the script doesn't insult your intelligence. Also Molly Ringwald is in this having the time of her life playing a bitchy faded actress.

No great shakes but not bad at all. I give it a 7.@@@1 +......this film is pretty awful, the only thing stopping me from giving it a rating of 1 was the fact that I unfortunately have seen worse.

The jungle music, juttering demons, and fluorescent UV style blood/teeth/eyes give it that "awful" look, and the script is dire.....this film is more like a test to see how long you can last before giving up on it. It's also predictable but not in a good way. Nothing this film does is in a good way. I watched it 10 minutes ago and thought I would rant a bit so there you are. (oh and the acting doesn't let the film down, it's also terrible)@@@0 +This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone.@@@1 +This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.

If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.

But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you.@@@0 +What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it.@@@1 +Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.@@@0 +Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.

There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious!@@@1 +Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.@@@0 +Come on people. This movie is better than 4. I can see this happening...wealthy people have done crazier things than this. And it was funny.

I watch a comedy to be entertained, escape from the pressures of the world for a short while, and not to have to take anything too seriously. This movie fully suits that purpose. I judge a movie on its own merits and am not about to compare Surviving Christmas to Blazing Saddles. I watched totally dysfunctional people grow into caring, likable individuals who could easily live down the street from my home. It will remain on my list of "favorite.....must watch for the holiday season". If you just want to have a fun 90 minutes, watch this one.@@@1 +I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.

The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.@@@0 +You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene.@@@1 +I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.@@@0 +What's not to like about this movie? Every year you know that you're going to get one or two yule tide movies during Christmas time and most of them are going to be terrible. This movie is definitely a fresh new idea that was pulled off pretty well. A very funny take on a rich young guy paying a family to simulate a real Christmas for him. What is the good of having money like that if you can't do fun things with it. It was a win-win situation. A regular family gets six figures and a rich guy gets to experience Christmas like he imagined. Only if.

Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) was incredibly difficult to deal with and it was just a riot to see the family reluctantly comply with his absurd demands. It was a fun and funny movie.@@@1 +This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.@@@0 +Its a good thing I rented the movie before seeing the viewer rating from this site. It was a wonderful movie that I will be adding to my Christmas selection. The cast was wonderfully chosen and Ben Affleck plays a good leading role. I would tell viewers who have not seen the movie to go ahead and buy it. I rate it right up there with Christmas vacation. The movie was very funny and well written and Ben plays the eccentric rich executive very well. The things he says and does is just how I would imagine a person with too much money to act. The movie is much funnier than The Santa Claus and Christmas With The Kranks. Plus it has a good story line and teaches the true meaning of Christmas which is you can't buy love with money.@@@1 +This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.

Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.@@@0 +I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.

This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".

If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out.@@@1 +"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.

Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!

Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...@@@0 +Surviving Christmas is a surprisingly funny movie especially considering the bad publicity when it was first released. Ben Affleck is funny as an obnoxious millionaire who pays the family that occupies his childhood home to be his family for Christmas. He then drives the family crazy with overindulgence for Christmas cheer. I have not been a Ben Affleck fan in the past (though I did like Daredevil and Paycheck) but here he is well cast in this role. I also like Christina Applegate as the daughter in the family who can't stand Affleck's character at first. Sure you can see where this movie is going but you don't care. Ignore what the critics say and rent this movie out because it is funnier than a lot of Christmas movies.@@@1 +I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.

It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.

A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.

@@@0 +At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too.@@@1 +i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.

i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.

i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.

it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.

i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.

i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.

spoilers ahead...

it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.

the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.

rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.

i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.@@@0 +What would you expect from a film titled 'Surviving Christmas'and presented as 'festive fun', something like Ghandi or English patient? There are lots of things I love about this film, it's funny, it is very well cast and it is superbly written. I came to the film as a Kaplan/Elfort fan but was dubious when I read the plot, it sounded ridiculous. But the film doesn't come across like that because Affleck (as Drew Latham) plays his part perfectly, one minute a child-like adult, the next a mature man who realises he has gained everything in life apart from what he really wants. In fact we see Latham grow up in this film, when he encounters the problems of those he envies and realises that their lives are not so good, he sees that his own lot is not so bad.

This film has fewer weak or dud scenes than many other comedies I have seen. Comedy is so much harder than any other type of drama, it either works or it doesn't and very few comedy writers get it correct every time.I particularly loved the drama scene, where the family take to reading parts written by Latham . The pleasure is in the reaction of Tom Valco (James Gandolfini) and the comments of Brian Valco (Josh Zuckerman). It is the dilemma of the greedy Tom Valco who has to bite his tongue, wear silly hats or sing to the Christmas tree in order to earn the prize money that keeps the film moving along well.

The addition of daughter Alicia (Christina Applegate) into the story brings a delightful romantic angle, and why not in a Christmas film? Of course its corny and contrived; he's rich and handsome, she's beautiful and single, and so inevitably her and Afflect end up falling over together in the snow and finding themselves face to face. Great! One thing I would have liked was more use of festive music to boost the atmosphere but I can't really complain. I got what I wanted.@@@1 +This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion.@@@0 +This movie isn't as bad as I heard. It was enjoyable, funny and I love that is revolves around the holiday season. It totally has me in the mood to Christmas shop and listen to holiday music. When this movie comes out on DVD it will take the place of Christmas Vacation in my collection. It will be a movie to watch every year after Thanksgiving to get me in the mood for the best time of the year. I heard that Ben's character was a bit crazy but I think it just adds to the movie and why be so serious all the time. Take it for what is it, a Christmas comedy with a love twist. I enjoyed it. No, it isn't Titanic and it won't make your heart pound with anticipation but it will bring on a laugh or two. So go laugh and have a good time:)@@@1 +If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great "Rondo" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???

Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving.@@@0 +I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh!@@@1 +Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake.@@@0 +This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it "builds" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic.@@@1 +What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?

Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film.@@@0 +`Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself.@@@1 +Pros: Nothing

Cons: Everything

Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.

Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.

My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.

My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)@@@0 +This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary!@@@1 +You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10@@@0 +This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy.@@@1 +And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."

Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.@@@0 +i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.@@@1 +I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize.@@@0 +This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or "down" day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it!@@@1 +Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie.@@@0 +The most moving and truly eye opening documentary ever created. I cried the whole way through, from start to end. Watching the show you are immediately captured by a man's struggle to live without pain, to live a life we would take for granted. The first time I heard the title, I was almost scared to see the program, it was hard for me to comprehend living in agony every day of every year of my life. I truly felt for him. The saddest part of the documentary is when Jonny picks out his coffin. Could you imagine doing that? Even more so, even though he was in excruciating and unbearable pain he still opened up his own charity. (DEBRA)Jonny is one of the only people that deserves true respect and admiration, he is the definition of a role model, what a true and undeniable hero he was!@@@1 +I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives.@@@0 +In September 2003 36-year-old Jonny Kennedy died. He had a terrible genetic condition called Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) - which meant that his skin literally fell off at the slightest touch, leaving his body covered in agonising sores and leading to a final fight against skin cancer. In his last months Jonny decided to work with filmmaker Patrick Collerton to document his life and death, and the result was a film, first broadcast in March, that was an uplifting, confounding and provocatively humorous story of a singular man. Not shying away from the grim reality of EB, the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full. Produced and directed by Patrick Collerton and first shown in March 2004 The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off has become the most talked about documentary of that year. It attracted nearly five million viewers and after the screening the public donated over half a million pounds to Jonny's charity, DEBRA. A Jonny Kennedy Memorial Fund has been set up to raise another half a million with the aim of ensuring that Jonny Kennedy left a one million pound legacy.@@@1 +Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.

3/10@@@0 +I have a two year old son who suffers from the same condition as Jonny Kennedy. I never got the chance to meet him but I have never heard anybody say a bad word about him. I hope he knows how much the making of this programme has helped his fellow sufferers by raising awareness of this terrible condition. This man has touched people in a way that a million charity leaflets could not. I believe that this should be compulsory viewing in schools. I also agree with other comments - what have I got to moan about? He took everything that life could throw at him and still managed to retain a sense of humour. God Bless. I couldn't watch the part that showed his dressings being changed. I have enough trouble with my son's.@@@1 +Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D@@@0 +Was flipping around the TV and HBO was showing a double whammy of unbelievably horrendous medical conditions, so I turned to my twin sister and said, "Hey this looks like fun," - truly I love documentaries - so we started watching it. At first I thought Jonni Kennedy was a young man, but then it was explained that due to his condition, he never went through puberty, thus the high voice and smaller body. He was on a crusade to raise money for his cause. He had the most wonderful sense of humor combined with a beautiful sense of spirituality... I cried, watched some more, laughed, got up to get another Kleenex, then cried some more. Once Jonni Kennedy's "time was up" he flew to heaven to be with the angels. He was more than ready; he had learned his lessons from this life and he was free. I highly recommend this. If you do not fall in love with this guy, you have no heart.@@@1 +I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)@@@0 +I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time.@@@1 +NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.

We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.

Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie.

See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.@@@0 +As with all of Angelopoulos' films, "The Suspended Step of the Stork" implicitly demands a close and intimate participation on the part of the viewer, a fact that has certainly contributed to the limited popularity of his work. Dialogues are sparing, with no monologues or exchanges exteriorizing the characters' inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The filmmaker prefers to keep the viewers away from their own emotional responses, and instead forces them to explore and study the characters' identities for themselves. As a result, the acting is understated and implicit, as opposed to overt and explicit.

The action scenes are set between long intervals of contemplation, where the viewer is asked to become a participant, to participate as an actor, by probing his or her own psyche. As in a novel, where the drama rests entirely on the author's writing to provide a template where the reader's imagination and/or past experience flourish, Angelopoulos' drama rests within his images: his uses of the long shots, the long takes, the leisurely pacing, the sparing dialogues that have become his trademark, inviting the viewer to experience the film from his or her personal perspective. Angelopoulos uses silence to capture moments of high intensity, reverting to the non-verbal language of gestures, gazes, sounds, and music, when he believes that words can only take us so far.

The music, by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, provides more than just a discreet background, but becomes itself a dramatic element of the story. A large part of the film consists of exterior shots in subtle, subdued colors, recorded in a drab winter light. Angelopoulos presents us with an "other Greece," one far different from the Greece of the tourist brochures, with ethereal blue skies and emerald seas, drowned in an eternal sunshine. Here, the skies are covered and gray, the air is cold and misty, and the sands of the pristine beaches have been replaced by the trampled, dirty snow of the village streets. Angelopoulos' genius through Arvanitis' camera is on display throughout the film.

"The Suspended Step of the Stork" is above all else a political statement aimed at the socio-political situation in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century. It is deeply concerned with the meaning of "borders," and with those who are the victims of the confusion between nations. In the "waiting room" facing the Albanian border, the refugees, political or other, outcast by the rest of humanity, wait. They may be stuck against a political border, but unfortunately they still carry with them, and hang on, deeper ancestral borders: those of the languages, of the customs, and of the races. Although Angelopoulos' political views are well known, the film steers clear of any political discourse regarding the causes of the refugees' plights. In the process, Angelopoulos forces us to meditate on the concepts of geographical, cultural, political, and personal "borders."

Angelopoulos considers himself a historian of twentieth century Greece, and he likes to bring lessons from the Hellenic myths into his discussions. In this film, he does some border crossing himself between the Greek and Italian cultures, drawing from a combined Homeric and Dantesque tradition of Odysseus' travel. Alexander is a Telemachus, in search of a story about an aging Greek politician/Odysseus who disappeared, never to be heard of again. This political man, a brilliant orator, unexpectedly and inexplicably left the comfort of his bourgeois existence, his wife, and his brilliant career, to live anonymously in a refugee camp with the lowest of the low. He became a poet in exile wondering how to change the world. Of course, the "politician" is not Alexander's father, but the "politician" stands before Alexander like a father figure/Odysseus. As with Homer's Telemachus, Alexander grows as a person during his odyssey.

Of course, it would be wrong to try and see in the film a retelling of Homer's Odyssey in a contemporary context. Angelopoulos draws on Odysseus's travels only as structuring and thematic elements for his film. In Angelopoulos' ending, "Odysseus" is more like the Dante's Odysseus: he does not leave for Ithaca but goes on, "carrying a suitcase." And Alexander/Telemachus is "suspended" between returning to his home and his career, or embarking on a voyage to "somewhere else." He states as much, in a voice-over at the beginning of the film, paraphrasing few lines from Dante's "Inferno": "And don't forget that the time for a voyage has come again. The wind blows your eyes far away."

Finally, although Angelopoulos is not a religious person, there is a Greek Orthodox religious theme introduced during the film in the form of the yellow-suited linesmen, who go around bettering things for their fellow human beings by reconnecting communications, and also the Christ-like figure of the "politician." In the final scene, these men in yellow demonstrate once more the Byzantine iconography's influence in Angelopoulos' work. They appear like "stylites," religious figures found in the Orthodox tradition, solitary and fervent men who took up their abode upon the tops of pillars, in a form of asceticism.

The film ends without a resolution as to the true identity of the character played by Mastroianni. Angelopoulos does not give us any clues, and the wife's statement, "It's not him," is far from convincing and left ambiguous enough. The important question of the film is not whether he is or is not the vanished politician, but that he could be the politician. But the film still ends on an optimistic note. Whereas the wires strung from pole to pole run only along the river, and thus communications across the border are still not possible, and it remains impenetrable, we note that this final scene is taken from a point of view across the river: the camera has crossed the border, and the reverse tracking shot is inviting Alexander and the viewer to follow beyond the boundary. On this account, Angelopoulos gives us hope that somehow, some of the borders will eventually crumble.@@@1 +This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)@@@0 +One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.

What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.

I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.

Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.

Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years.@@@1 +this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.@@@0 +A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)

Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.

Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.@@@1 +I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."

The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me.

The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)

Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10.@@@0 +Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), "Mister Roberts", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), "Shane", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) "King Kong" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS!@@@1 +I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.@@@0 +"The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" (1936), starring Thin Man series star William Powell (this film was released the same year as the second Thin Man film, "After The Thin Man," comes very close to duplicating the fun and style of the Thin Man films, but it nonetheless misses. Still, it is a wonderfully fun, highly entertaining murder mystery in the same comic vein.

Is Myrna Loy missed? Of course, let's not lie. However, I'd be hard-pressed to name a better substitute than Jean Arthur. And the chemistry between Arthur and co-star William Powell is real and it's fun, romantic and involving.

The story and screenplay by Anthonyu Vieller and John Wyne's production company partner, James Edward Grant ("The Angel & The Bad Man") is close to being up there with a Thin Man effort, but lacks a bit of the proper wit and sizzle.

While it's not in the stratosphere of 'The Thin Man" movies (what else is?), "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is one of the most entertaining of the dozens and dozens of mystery-comedy "who-done-its" of the '30s & 40s.@@@1 +I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!

Final Query:

Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.

DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!

Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.@@@0 +William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were.@@@1 +Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.@@@0 +I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.@@@1 +Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap."@@@0 +RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films.@@@1 +I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently.@@@0 +The comic banter between William Powell and Jean Arthur is the highlight of this murder mystery, which has one of the most bizarre and unlikely plots ever. Powell is probably the most suave detective of the 30's, and Arthur has a unique voice which often sounds like a succession of tiny tinkly bells. They are extremely fun to watch, so take the brashness of the plot with a grain of salt and just enjoy seeing it unfold. Eric Blore also has some comic turns as Powell's butler.

Powell's contract with MGM included a clause which allowed him to reject being loaned out to another studio, but he wanted to work again with Arthur and he liked the script, so he eagerly accepted the assignment. They had worked together in two 1929 Paramount films, The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, both in the Philo Vance series.@@@1 +For domestic audiences I can see how they would applaud this movie. For outsiders, with no vested interests, it did not make much sense. The Germans were portrayed as incompetents and the Russians as heroes. The supposedly romantic angle was superfluous and a distraction. How a young woman could 'love' the lieutenant from just glimpsing him was nonsense. How she could, as mentioned at the end of the movie, never marry just because of this infatuation was beyond me. I mentioned the Germans were portrayed as idiots and that was exemplified in the chase into the marsh. Several hundred German troops advanced, pushing the Russians into the marsh. So the Russians hid and the Germans stopped at the edge of the marsh and just stood there listening. I suppose they did not want to get their boots wet, but I am sure an officer would have ordered 20 or 30 men into the water to search the marsh. But that would have ended the story. Also, the Germans entered the barn where the Russians were hiding in the loft and did not bother to fire into the roof. At the worst some soldier would have tossed a grenade into the loft and not climbed a ladder to peer in.

I did see some reviewers who said they cried at the end. I wonder why? You knew this small band would perish and they was nothing heart-tugging in that.@@@0 +I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.

The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important "type writer" clicks and air "whooshes", which is a cool effect though quite amusing!

I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action.@@@1 +I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".

If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.@@@0 +The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!!@@@1 +Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS

This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe

The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid

The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more

Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay

Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual@@@0 +Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best.@@@1 +Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.

My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child.@@@0 +I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family.@@@1 +Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!@@@0 +I recall seeing this movie as a kid. I don't recall where I saw it. I must have been around 14 years old. I thought the movie was incredible and wished to see it again. It came on the Kung Fu channel once, but I missed it. I was really bummed. It is the best special-effects Kung Fu movie that I've seen to date! I highly recommend it, and now that I've discovered where to get it, I can enjoy it once more and for years to come. I also have to check out this Return of the Venom movie of which some have spoken so highly.@@@1 +This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.

Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.

If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.

The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.@@@0 +After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the "spin" pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one.@@@1 +I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.

If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.@@@0 +When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended.@@@1 +Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.@@@0 +This movie is really good. The plot, which works like puzzle forces viewer to think and guess, what will happen next. Such a trick brings a lot of surprises and makes a viewer really looking forward to solution of a riddle. Fighting scenes are very good. There's a lot of different combat styles (although one of styles was a bit unreal for me, but it's only my opinion) to watch and it's fascinating show. The only thing which may be irritating is actors look. A bit too effeminate (at least for me). Hong Kong was always good at kung-fu movies especially in the 70's and 80's, so "Five Venoms" (or other its versions) is great choice.@@@1 +TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.

One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.

The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".@@@0 +I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!

We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".

Watch it soon!@@@1 +Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.@@@0 +I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.

The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.

How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.

We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.

If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this.@@@1 +I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK@@@0 +If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10

@@@1 +While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.@@@0 +This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.@@@1 +Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.@@@0 +A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.

Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.

Around 7 out of 10.@@@1 +Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.@@@0 +One of the more enjoyable aspects of Asian cinema (or, indeed, most anything done outside these holier-than-thou United States) are the permutations that crop up. In post-World War Two Japanese manga (comics), for instance, are to be found a veritable endless variety of subjects, many of them handled in uniquely imaginative fashion. The same thing happens in genre film-making, as well; though, again, I'm referring to movies made outside the U.$. (where we're just too "sophisticated" in our close-mindedness to appreciate anything that isn't about or by US). Would an American company, for instance, back not one but a series of movies featuring a masked professional wrestler (El Santo) or a werewolf (Paul Naschy) or a real-life martial artist (Bruce Lee)...? As for television: forget it. While I still love the KUNG FU series that starred the late David Carradine, I've always felt that the Americanized version of Asian martial arts was- how to put it kindly- a bit lacking. To this very day, there hasn't been a pay-per-view channel to feature Asian martial artists playing Asian martial artists in Asia. (There are lots of soft-core porn masquerading as entertainment shows, but the so-called Action Channel, for instance, has yet to import or to produce a True Martial Arts teleseries.) Before Brother Cadfile was investigating murders on the BBC, there was, of all things, at least one Kung Fu movie that featured a group of martial artists more or less involved in a murder mystery: THE 5 DEADLY VENOMS. In its own right as fascinating as any other genre-based whodunit (western, cop show, etc.), this martial arts masterpiece stands out as a truly superior piece of work. It's now available from Dragon Dynasty and the print is beautiful and the DVD commentary by Bey Logan is EXACTLY the kind of intelligent, thoughtful analysis these gems truly deserve. If you're a martial arts movie fan, rejoice: one of the greatest movie genres of all time (specifically, the martial arts movies of the 1970s and early 1980s) are getting a long-overdue second life (and greatly appreciated second look) on DVD.@@@1 +This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!

10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!@@@0 +By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.

Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?

This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.

Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city.@@@1 +Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!@@@0 +"In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from."@@@1 +This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.

They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.

This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!@@@0 +There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.

An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word "Venom" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.

Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.

It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.

One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan.@@@1 +I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.@@@0 +Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.@@@1 +The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film".@@@0 +Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet.@@@1 +Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.

The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.@@@0 +After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his "unfinished" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five "venoms" so as to defeat the other four.

I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!@@@1 +First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.

One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.

It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.

It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.

Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!@@@0 +Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.

The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.

The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!@@@1 +I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.

Boy, was I wrong.

I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.

Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.

This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.

Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through@@@0 +Most 70s (and 80s) Kong Kong martial arts films barely function as movies; usually there are a few well-planned fight sequences, but the plot is scraped pretty thin to fill in the gaps between those nodes -- like porno films, really.

But this one does several things well. Most overtly, there is the direction and choreography, which confines each combatant to a 'style' -- it's really based on Chinese circus acrobatics and comedic theater, but the effect works.

Second, there is the language of the camera, which uses some impressive techniques(even by today's measure), changing projection speeds from real time time to slow motion, and from unfiltered to filtered views to depict story direction toward the past or toward the future.

Least overt, but most powerful and unexpected, is the construction. The winner of this contest is determined by who 'unfolds' the story. The master (the writer) sets up a game where the lead character doesn't know who he's seeking, which is the same situation we viewers find ourselves in. One by one, he figures out who is who, at the same rate we find out who is who. It all follows a tragedy/noir arc. The ending tends toward irony, a la "The Sting". Much more clever stuff than what we usually get out of this genre.

The 'five venoms' idea is the template for Tarantino's 'deadly viper assassins' from the "Kill Bill" volumes.@@@1 +I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying.

I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall.

Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.@@@0 +For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale.@@@1 +Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.

Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.@@@0 +Seldom do I ever encounter a film so completely fulfilling that I must speak about it immediately. This movie is definitely some of the finest entertainment available and it is highly authentic. I happened to see the dubbed version but I'm on my way right now to grab the DVD remaster with original Chinese dialogue. Still, the dubbing didn't get in the way and sometimes provided some seriously funny humour: "Poison Clan rocks the world!!!"

The story-telling stays true to Chinese methods of intrigue, suspense, and inter-personal relationships. You can expect twists and turns as the identities of the 5 venoms are revealed and an expert pace.

The martial arts fight choreography is in a class of its own and must be seen to be believed. It's like watching real animals fight each other, but construed from their own arcane martial arts forms. Such level of skill amongst the cast is unsurpassed in modern day cinema.

The combination provides for a serious dose of old Chinese culture and I recommend it solely on the basis of the film's genuine intent to tell a martial arts story and the mastery of its execution. ...Of course, if you just want to see people pummel each other, along with crude forms of ancient Chinese torture, be my guest!@@@1 +I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.@@@0 +The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.

Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top.

Poison Clan rocks!@@@1 +This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?

@@@0 +I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white"@@@1 +Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.@@@0 +This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.

The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.

One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.

At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.

And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.

This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not.@@@1 +First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.

First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.

Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!

Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!

Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!@@@0 +The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor.@@@1 +WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.@@@0 +I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year!@@@1 +Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.@@@0 +I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there.

ps, Sarah? Call me....@@@1 +This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5@@@0 +The Sarah Silverman program is ... better than those other shows. No laugh tracks, no painful jokes, just a program. The Sarah Silverman program. If you're like me, and you love comedy, this is probably a show for you.

Sarah Silverman brings out-there-funny, and right-here-funny to the table with ease. A mix of different styles, which makes for its own.

This program isn't something you want to start a compare war with, seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with them (other shows). This show is its own entity, and i think most comedy heads will like it just fine.

Go watch and see.@@@1 +Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.

Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas.

It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.

It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.@@@0 +Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore ("oh wait now that you're close you do look old" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time.@@@1 +Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!

However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_7.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_7.txt index 4764040..76f842c 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_7.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_7.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.@@@1 -Saw it at UCSB's reel loud festival and was *shocked* that it won the golden reel award. I wasn't the only one, considering the audience had mixed reactions to the piece. I thought there were many other better flicks out there, but then I learned that the judges were heavily rooted within the area of film theory and other artsy crap. While the cinematography and editing are on par with many other shorts out there, the storytelling is nothing more than your average student piece. Seems as though "serious" student films need to include one of these categories: sex, intrapersonal struggle, and eventual suicide -- Nick and Kate cops out and includes all three. Please, be more original!

Oh, and it might be my outsider's opinion, but the guy from montecito sounds a little fake. Does anyone else thing so?@@@0 -This was a really cool movie. It just goes to prove that you don't need silly litle things like continuity and scripts to make a movie. It traverses continents in seconds, people get shot and nothing happens to them, swords set on fire, samuari fight on sinking galleons, David Essex is the epitome of slimey villainy and John Rhys Davies is just the dude. I enjoyed this movie but I like s**t movies, this is the perfect example of a very s**t movie that just KICKS ASS. If you like Battlefield Earth you'll love this film, its swashbuckling, its fast, its silly, its samuaraitastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It also looks as if it was made in 1972@@@1 -The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.

Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.@@@0 -I find this movie the best movie I have ever seen, because it reflects the inner strength of a young girl during the second world war. The movie is impressive, not least because it actually happened. It reminds me of the story of Anne Frank.

@@@1 -Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.@@@0 -this movie is a masterpiece a story of a young woman during the war , and it really happen , not exactly as the movie , but it is a great story , i was impress by this film ,the acting and the story where great i like this film because it is a true story it's Giff me a feeling that i was there and i feel sorry for the ca-rector that Maruschka Detmers is playing because who wants to end here life that way. i recommend that everybody have to see this film , special the young ones and ma by the learn something from this film. This film you can compare whit the movie soldier from orange or any real story that happened in the WW2.@@@1 -I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.@@@0 -This is one of the best comedy ever ! The writing of this parody of soap is brilliant and the cast, well just look at the names of the cast and you'll understand why it is so great. If you're a Kevin Kline fan, he does (as always) an fantastic performance, and Robert Downey Jr is perfect. If you don't laugh while seen this movie, you don't have any sense of humor.@@@1 -I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.

Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.

I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, "Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer." By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.@@@0 -As a another reviewer states Hanna's War is an outstanding film about an outstanding person, Hanna "Anniko" Senesh, who would become the Jewish Joan Of Arc. Unfortunately I diverge in opinion not agreeing that Miss Detmers as the lead is too beautiful to be taken seriously as a resistance fighter. In truth for me her performance is not held back by her beauty but makes it all the more stark in the terror of the sadistic brutality as a resistor she faces. Maruschka Detmers performance is brave, poignant, heartfelt or understood, and totally believable. In other words for me "In the zone." from the opening credits. If you would like to learn about the suffering of someone else for something they believe in and be impressively entertained give Hanna's War with Maruschka Detmers a try. My hat is off also to Ellen Burstyn as Hanna's mother a much well known and famous actress who could have made effort to walk off with the film. In that it is a team effort perhaps of two actress' but not an All About Eve situation.@@@1 -If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this. Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters. Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one. Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one.@@@0 -It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.

The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.

Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.

The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.

The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever.@@@1 -This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)

Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.

But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.

@@@0 -For someone who remembers Jane in the Daily Mirror strip cartoon, viewing this film is an exercise in nostalgia. In that context it is wonderful, but younger viewers would undoubtedly find the comedy limp and would miss the point that the actors are cartoon characters. The plotline is also a bit limp for today's audience, but reflects the naivety of the 40s and 50s very well. Jane, you must remember, was part of the escapist fantasy of the wartime years, created to boost the morale of the troops. She gave a double meaning to the "strip" in strip cartoon.

The story has something in common with the tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rider Haggard. The theme would have been a familiar one to readers in that era, a bunch of bumbling Nazis thwarted by a few equally bumbling Englanders, and set in the African jungle of course.

For Jane fans, a must see. For the rest of you, a damp squib.

@@@1 -I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either. It has some big names in the cast, but that's it. There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.

The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand.

The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing.@@@0 -The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Movie Nuttball's NOTE:

I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today!

If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)!@@@1 -This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.

If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture.@@@0 -This movie catches a lot of flak, but this is usually based on the horrible looking and covered / clothed version of the film that played US television and has also been issued to death on VHS and DVD buy companies like Alpha, Unicorn, etc. This movie never had a theatrical release in the states, although it was picked up by Avco Embassy in 1973. In Spain at the time, when there was nudity involved, the filmmakers shot two versions, one with clothes and one with out. The fully uncut English dubbed export print was titled WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS and seems to have been released to home video only in Sweden back in the 80's. It can be found on Ebay and the likes and comes highly recommended. My guess is Avco cut the film down for a R rated release that never happened. In 1974 it was released by Avco to television titled FURY OF THE WOLFMAN and the clothed version was used for this TV print. Cut to 12 years later and FURY OF THE WOLFMAN pops up on home video on the Charter label. This version appears to be what Avco was going to release back in '73. It's the uncovered version, with some nudity that would never pass on TV or in a PG movie. There are several scenes on the Charter tape that play out with nudity that are clothed in the TV print ( the source for all those dollar Dud's and VHS editions ). But a comparison to the fully uncut WOLFMAN NEVER SLEEPS reveals that 2 scenes are cut on this version! ( spoilers in next paragraph ) The scene where Ilona has Waldermar chained to the wall and whips him after he transforms into the werewolf is incomplete. After whipping him into submission, she starts to remove her clothes and begins making love to the werewolf!!! The werewolf responds positively to these sexual shenanigans too. This scene certainly ranks as one of the most unusual in the history of horror films and is a delirious treat. It's not graphic but the implied bestiality was too much for US audiences, or more likely the MPAA. Ilona is desperately in love with Waldemar and could not possess him, hence her whole scheme to mind control Waldermar's wife and involve her in an affair. She wanted to wreck his marriage, and she accomplishes this while Waldemar is in Tibet. Unfortunately he returns a werewolf, but this does not slow her down a bit. If she can't physically have him as a man, she loves him enough to have sex with him as a werewolf. This also helps explain the later scene where the werewolf beds down with a woman he spots getting naked before bedtime while peeping through her window. This scene is presented sans nudity in the covered version and really makes no sense. In the uncut version, it would seem Ilona's affections have made the werewolf horny and in need of release, so he rapes the first woman he can after escaping. The other cut is a complete scene of Waldemar in bed with Karen and she is seen naked. A very similar bedroom scene was cut out of the US version of WEREWOLF SHADOW ( WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) as well. The film does have it's problems though, for certain. The director was drunk, the bad stand in for the werewolf at points, the atrocious English dubbing, the inclusion of sequences from the first Waldemar film MARK OF THE WOLFMAN aka FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR and the grotesque overuse of that film's music score throughout etc, but seen in it's original widescreen format and uncut ( ie: WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS ) it is one of the wildest and most outrageous of the Daninsky werewolf series, with a plot line unmatched in it's everything but the kitchen sink approach. The cut / clothed pan and scan full screen copies of this film do it no favors, and unfortunately that's the version almost everyone commenting on the film have seen. The film carries a 1970 copyright, and I'd bet the 1972 release date on the IMDb is incorrect. The film precedes WEREWOLF SHADOW ( aka WEREWOLF VS THE VAMPIRE WOMAN ) in the series and was certainly released before WEREWOLF SHADOW. The ending of WEREWOLF NEVER SLEEPS / FURY OF THE WOLFMAN dovetails directly into the opening of WEREWOLF SHADOW, offering concrete evidence of this. Sadly a complete version of this may never get a decent release. A perfect release would be the uncut English version but in Spanish with English subtitles. The English dubbing severely hurts the movie. But any Spanish language version would reflect the covered version as shown in Spain during the Franco era, where nudity was verboten.@@@1 -About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.@@@0 -This movie is stuffed full of stock Horror movie goodies: chained lunatics, pre-meditated murder, a mad (vaguely lesbian) female scientist with an even madder father who wears a mask because of his horrible disfigurement, poisoning, spooky castles, werewolves (male and female), adultery, slain lovers, Tibetan mystics, the half-man/half-plant victim of some unnamed experiment, grave robbing, mind control, walled up bodies, a car crash on a lonely road, electrocution, knights in armour - the lot, all topped off with an incredibly awful score and some of the worst Foley work ever done.

The script is incomprehensible (even by badly dubbed Spanish Horror movie standards) and some of the editing is just bizarre. In one scene where the lead female evil scientist goes to visit our heroine in her bedroom for one of the badly dubbed: "That is fantastical. I do not understand. Explain to me again how this is..." exposition scenes that litter this movie, there is a sudden hand held cutaway of the girl's thighs as she gets out of bed for no apparent reason at all other than to cover a cut in the bad scientist's "Mwahaha! All your werewolfs belong mine!" speech. Though why they went to the bother I don't know because there are plenty of other jarring jump cuts all over the place - even allowing for the atrocious pan and scan of the print I saw.

The Director was, according to one interview with the star, drunk for most of the shoot and the film looks like it. It is an incoherent mess. It's made even more incoherent by the inclusion of werewolf rampage footage from a different film The Mark of the Wolf Man (made 4 years earlier, featuring the same actor but playing the part with more aggression and with a different shirt and make up - IS there a word in Spanish for "Continuity"?) and more padding of another actor in the wolfman get-up ambling about in long shot.

The music is incredibly bad varying almost at random from full orchestral creepy house music, to bosannova, to the longest piano and gong duet ever recorded. (Thinking about it, it might not have been a duet. It might have been a solo. The piano part was so simple it could have been picked out with one hand while the player whacked away at the gong with the other.)

This is one of the most bewilderedly trance-state inducing bad movies of the year so far for me. Enjoy.

Favourite line: "Ilona! This madness and perversity will turn against you!" How true.

Favourite shot: The lover, discovering his girlfriend slain, dropping the candle in a cartoon-like demonstration of surprise. Rank amateur directing there.@@@1 -What happened? Those were the first words to come to mind after this awful movie finished for the first and last time on my computer screen. Nightmare on Elm St. had gone noticeably downhill after it's cult-classic of a first film, but I doubt anybody expected this horrible aberration. Nobody expected this cosmic joke of a film, and nobody is more distraught about it than I am.

This is by far the worst ANOES film of the lot. It doesn't seem too bad at the beginning, with a genuinely creepy intro and a rather elongated shower scene featuring Alice. But then we hit rock bottom right at the beginning with bad acting and a jumbled sequence of events. I mean, sure, Freddy movies are supposed to be dreamlike and creepy, but this one is like a train-wreck in it's poor sequencing of events and awful plot setup. It feels like you're coming down with a terrible headache, not like you're getting scared. So the directing totally fails. None of the suspense and well crafted horror from previous sequels is found here, and even the death scenes are mostly just crass and moronic (the death by food especially), except for that one cool scene that's crafted like a comic book battle. That's why this movie gets a point.

The storyline...lame, lame, lame, LAME. It was an excuse to gross people out and to make the MPAA mad, and nothing more.

The acting...should I mention how Freddy has been turned into a childish boogey-man-like clown figure? How his rebirth scene made him look like a monster out of a 7 year old's horror book instead of the foreboding and nightmarish dream killer we've all known and loathed since the first film? That arm waving and stupid chuckling as he appeared again...ugh. And his one liners, too. Throughout the whole movie, they suck. Badly. A grade-schooler could come up with funnier stuff then the vomit Freddy spews throughout the 90 minute duration of the film. Hell, a chimpanzee could come up with much funnier lines than what Freddy's been told to say here. Who wrote the script for this? This movie is really irritating, too. It seems so pointless. Like a gnat buzzing around your head, a gnat that just WON'T go away. Freddy is just an annoyance now. We've seen him so many times before. This one's nothing different, and a lot of the time you just want him to take his awful one-liners and get off your TV screen. Alice, instead of the thoughtful and quiet girl from the last movie, seems annoying and very shallow, and this is obviously due to the horrible, horrible script this movie was fitted with. Lisa Wilcox may be a great actor, and sometimes it shines through the cracks here, but she can't save this movie. The other actors just suck, mostly.

The last 15 or 20 minutes of Freddy's existence in this film are awful and embarrassing. I hope Englund was ashamed of this. Who wants to see Freddy running around like a mutated gorilla with his limbs stretched out, laughing like a cartoon villain? This movie destroyed anything positive I felt for the Nightmare series. I can't ever watch them again without this image running through my head; of the mangled cartoon abomination that Krueger became. He was slowly becoming a jokey, retarded pop culture icon, but this is the lowest of the low. This is rock bottom. Nobody will ever take Freddy Krueger seriously again after seeing this film. He's naught but a joke, a clown that is long overdue for retirement. Pathetic.

Of all the movies I could hate, why did it have to be Nightmare on Elm St, a series which I once adored and liked a lot? The Dream Child represents the death of a legend, and the shattering of any hope I had in the Nightmare on Elm St. series. Freddy would go on to continue his downward spiral into clown status in the next installment, Freddy's Dead (which was more entertaining than this was, actually), and then he would go on to bring down the mood in Freddy VS Jason, and finally he would putter out into nothing, which is for the best.

I know this has mostly been a rant about why Freddy sucks now, but this movie is overall, horrible, and one of the worst movies ever made. Not recommended to anyone, and even ANOES completionists won't want to see this one again.@@@0 -Someday somebody is going to write an essay comparing Paul Naschy's "Fury of the Wolfman" to the great Spanish surrealist films, "L'age D'or" and "Un Chien Andelou". The Naschy film is a masterpiece of delirium from beginning to end. Dali and Bunuel probably loved it, and ate their hearts out seeing someone do with such apparent ease what they had to rack their brains to pull off.

The film lacks cohesive structure even though it does have a plot that moves from A to B to C. Some mishmash about a "Professor Walterman" -- his first name, mind you -- who was bitten by a Yeti monster during an expedition to Tibet and hasn't been the same since, which is understandable. One of his jealous colleagues, the insane daughter of the noted Doctor Wolfstein, knows about his condition and reveals that his wife has been cheating on him. But its a setup for a twisted scientific experiment to unleash his inner beast.

"Walterman" flips out, turns into a werewolf, kills a few people, is electrocuted, dies, is buried, unburied, taken to a castle filled with circus freaks, wired to various machines, zapped with assorted electronic effects, injected with potent elixirs, is chained up, turns into a werewolf, a woman in an evening gown with thigh-high Nazi fetish boots whips him, he escapes, helps the pretty female doctor find her way out of the castle, fends off the circus freaks with a battle axe, eventually turns back into a werewolf, and has to fight to the death against the female werewolf incarnation of his cheating wife. The lady with the Nazi boots shoots him with silver bullets from her Luger pistol, they die together, and the pretty doctor walks off into the morning with the studly reporter, who did nothing. "Look! What a beautiful day it is!"

"La furia del Hombre Lobo" was written by Paul Naschy in a hurry. Original director Enrique Eguilez was fired and replaced by José María Zabalza, a drunk who was infamously intoxicated throughout the production. He was often unable to work (though he did find time to instruct his 14 year old nephew to make some alterations to the script) and Naschy ended up directing much of the film uncredited. Zabalza did rally enough to clip some action scenes from one of Naschy's previous movies, "Mark of the Wolfman". The scenes were fortunately good enough to use twice even if the costumes were different, and helped pad out the runtime after Zabalza refused to get out of bed to finish the movie. Post production was a nightmare. Nobody knew who was doing the editing, the money ran out, the master print disappeared for a while, and then at a pre-release screening for a film distributor the executive arrived to find Zabalza urinating into the gutter in front of the theater. He was too drunk to find the restroom but at least he made it to the curb.

Yet somehow the film works, if you let it. It keys into those atavistic memories we have about murky castles, vaulted catacombs, chains, whips, gloomy moors. Fans of those sort of things will find it hypnotically watchable even if the story as a whole doesn't make much sense due to the fractured discontinuity of the execution. In one scene its pouring rain and the wolfman howls at the lightning; in the next shot its bone dry and he's howling at the full moon. Then its raining again. And yet you don't look at it as a gaffe. Its like an unfolding dream where contradictions are possible, opposites are the same, and effects proceed causes; First the wolfman picks up the power cable and screams, and then the cable starts sparking with electricity. People say its low budget hurts the overall effectiveness -- I say the film would have been unwatchable if they had a dime more to spend. It is a marvel of making something out of nothing, and succeeds not because of what it could of had, but because of what it does. It's easy to laugh at stuff like this and even easier to dismiss it. The trick is being able to see through the mayhem, or rather to regard the chaos as part of the effect.

Paul Naschy died last week at the age of 75. He had been ill with pancreatic cancer for a year or more, was working on film projects right up until his last days, but passed away in Madrid, Spain, with his family while receiving chemotherapy treatment. His rich, varied, and surprisingly lengthy career is a legacy to a man stubbornly pursuing his artistic vision in the face of universal mainstream disinterest. And yet in all of us there is an eleven year old kid who will watch his movies like "Fury of the Wolfman" in rapt awe. Even people who don't like Euro Horror will discover something in this movie to marvel at, if only for just a minute in a couple spots. You can find it for free at Archive.Org or even buy it on a DVD for a nickel. It's worth far, far more.

Amusingly, Naschy was horrified to learn that many others like myself regard this twisted, sick, demented little movie as a classic, if not an outright masterpiece of Cinema Dementia. The problems he encountered during the production and the mess of a film that was left after were perhaps too personal an artistic disappointment for Naschy to forgive. I would never presume to dare to forgive it for him, but I will say this: I'd rather watch "Fury of the Wolfman" in its dingiest, most cut and degraded fullscreen public domain print than ever sit though the overbearing, obnoxious crap churning out up at the Swine Flu cineplexes this or any other weekend.

The world lost a great artist this month. Watch his films, and remember.

9/10@@@1 -A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child

This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.

There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.

The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.

Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it.

The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool.

The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.

The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.

Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.

Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.

The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name.

The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy.@@@0 -I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned!@@@1 -This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10@@@0 -This movie was great and I would like to buy it.The boy goes with his grandfather to catch a young eagle. the boy has to feed and care for the eagle until it is old enough to be sacrificed for the crops. the boy saves the eagle from being killed and runs away from the tribe.The eagle helps feed him by catching a duck from a small pond the boy scares up. Later the boy shoots a deer that a bully kid was claiming because their arrows were marked very close the same. Only until they check the thickness of the red lines do they determine who actually got the deer. But this was unfortunate because it made the other boys even crueler to him,and at the end he is being chased up onto a cliff but when you think he will fall off his pure love for the eagle transforms him into a golden eagle with only a necklace as a reminder of who he was.Please if anyone knows where I can buy this movie let me know.I haven't seen it for over 30 years,but still remember parts of the movie.deniselacey2000@yahoo.com@@@1 -Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad.@@@0 -Man, I loved this movie! This really takes me back to when I was a kid. These were the days when the teachers still showed classroom films on reel-to-real and if you were good, they would rewind the movie slowly so you could watch it play backward. I still remember one of the opening lines...."Tutazema was his name, and he was an Orphan. He lived with his sister so and so in the village." This is a great movie for kids and as enduring as the red balloon. At the end the other Indian boys in the village attach the feathers to Tutazema and he becomes an eagle himself. He gets to live the way he always wanted to. He gets to soar the heavens.@@@1 -Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel.@@@0 -A riotous farce set in the world of glamorous daytime soap operas! This film is hilarious! Admittedly, you have to have a taste for films with screaming, hysterical dialogue, over-the-top acting, and melodramatic plot twists. But if you do, you're in for one hell of a treat.

Sally Field plays Celeste Talbert, daytime TV's "Queen of Misery." Celeste's cushy life is thrown into upheaval with the unexpected arrival of Lori Craven (Elisabeth Shue), her long-lost niece, and, simultaneously, Jeffrey Anderson (Kevin Kline - splendid as always), Celeste's long-ago lover. But Celeste has been hiding a deep, dark secret, and the arrival of Lori and Jeffrey might just bring it to the surface. Add in the diabolical Montana Moorehead (a wonderful Cathy Moriarty, in full "gorgeous woman with testosterone to spare mode"), who is trying mighty hard to destroy Celeste's career; David (Robert Downey, Jr.), the weenie-boy producer of the soap who's secretly plotting with Montana to ruin Celeste; and, Rose Schwarz (Whoopi Goldberg), scriptwriter and Celeste's one true confidant, and you are in for a heaping helping of subplots and general chaos.

Chaotic comedies like this are tricky to execute (does anyone remember 'Mixed Nuts'?), but when done well, can be pretty damn funny! A major ingredient that is necessary to any good comedy is the casting of seasoned pros who know that lots of times the funniest things are not said but seen in an expression or a look. Field, Kline, Goldberg, and the rest all work together so well and are clearly having a great time that it is hard not to become drawn in by their energy and enthusiasm. Shue is clearly the weakest link here, but she only draws attention to herself because she is surrounded by Field, Kline, et al. Moriarty is a stand-out in the showy villainess role, making you think of the hottest damn dominatrix you ever did see!! There are also lots of familiar faces that you'll recognize in small (but, nevertheless, all very funny) roles, including Carrie Fisher, Garry Marshall, Kathy Najimy, and Teri Hatcher. Director Michael Hoffman keeps the pace swift and the histrionic plot moving toward the big finish. Mention must also be made of Robert Harling's screenplay, carefully constructed to stage a soap opera within a soap opera. The dialogue is boiling over with great lines, delivered brilliantly by the actors (I'd be willing to bet that a lot of this stuff was improvised).

Look, if you want to see a bunch of pros doing what they do best and having a great time doing it, get your hands on this one. If not for anything else, it will put you in a good mood and make you laugh!@@@1 -Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.

This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.

I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.@@@0 -Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, " The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle". I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!!@@@1 -It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.@@@0 -I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...

I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK!

What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace.

CB@@@1 -This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs!@@@0 -My son was 7 years old when he saw this movie, he is now on a Russian Fishing vessel and said that the movie he was most impressed with and that has lingered in his mind all of these 39 years is the movie of The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle. He has asked if it were possible for me to get this for him. I am sure that a lot of things go through his head as he has only 3 hours of daylight and he has been on this ship for 3 months and will have 3 more months before his contract expires. Since we have Indian blood he connects to this movie. On January 27th he will turn 47 years old and I would like to be able to obtain this movie for him. He lives in Thailand and has been a commercial fisherman for the past 17 years and as we all know this is one of the most dangerous jobs. Can you help me obtain this movie? Thanking you in advance, Dolly Crout-Soto, Deerfield Beach, FL@@@1 -I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.@@@0 -I remembered seeing this movie when i was a kid one day on the wonderful world of Disney. This movie has been in my memory for over 30 years and I have been looking for it. I would have to say that out of all the kids movies I saw back then,, this one stuck out more than all of them and after only seeing it once, I really hoped I would get to see it again. The story and images of this movie have been burned into my memory. To this day, I never did see it after that day back in the 70s, in fact, I never remembered the title until an internet search earlier today disclosed it to me. I loved it and want my kids to see it.Does anybody know where I can find it?@@@1 -I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.

Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).

The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.

Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.

My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)@@@0 -I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away...@@@1 -Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy.

I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.@@@0 -My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible.@@@1 -STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.

It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.

The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.

The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. *@@@0 -I have seen this movie when I was about 7 years old - which was 33 years ago - and I never forgot this movie! I was deeply touched and moved by the brave little boy and the beautiful eagle. And I just couldn't believe it when he turned into an eagle just when everyone in the theater thought he was going to die...

My sister was in the movie with me and I asked her recently if she remembered the movie we saw with the boy and the eagle and she said she remembered it like we saw it only yesterday. So it isn't just me.

This movie is a MUST SEE !!!

You will never forget it - just like my sister and me...@@@1 -"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.@@@0 -I read so many comments that I, too, shared about remembering this movie and wanting so badly to see it again but I didn't know the name of the movie. Thankfully, because of doing a search and finding the title on this site, I read the comments left here and realized that this was the movie I remembered. I then did a search and did find the movie and was so thrilled to be able to watch the movie once more 40 years later. Because of this site and your comments, you helped me and so I want to thank all of you. I want to share how I was able to find this movie for all of you who were looking for a copy as well. It was on the VHS version of Wonderful World of Disney's "Call it Courage" which contained 2 movies, the second one being "The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle." It touched me now as much as it did 40 years ago and now I own my own copy of it. I think it is only available on VHS. I found it on ebay and I have seen several copies of it there. Enjoy it, I know I did!

It is a wonderful story about the love of a boy and the eagle he took care of. When it was time to sacrifice the eagle, the boy set the eagle free because he couldn't allow it to be killed. After the boy was forced to leave the tribe for punishment after freeing the eagle, the eagle, too, saved the boy's life and more than that, taught him how to survive. The closeness that the boy and the eagle shared in the wilderness was so moving and the filming was really remarkable. What a wonderful era this was. I have never seen anything come even close to this movie!@@@1 -I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.

Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.

Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.

Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)

4/10@@@0 -I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10@@@1 -When you look back at another bad Nightmare sequel like Freddy's Revenge, you have to at least give it some credit for trying something new. And although The Dream Child is more enjoyable it offers absolutely nothing new to the series. Yes, there's the creative deaths as usual, like a kid becoming part of a comic book and facing "Super Freddy" but even scenes like that aren't used to their full potential and the parts without Freddy are just boring.

This marked the official death of scariness to the series. Freddy seems to be the comedic relief now...but to what?

My Rating: 4/10@@@0 -The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you.@@@1 -The only thing that prevented this flick from being a total disaster were a couple of interesting stylish touches.

(Moderate Spoiler Alert) Death by comic is a bit derivative of a scene in Twilight Zone: The Movie, which delivers death by cartoon. Still this was handled nicely, especially watching the ink bleed and the color being sapped out.

Additionally, there is one other good scene with a demon motorcycle.

Having said that, I was glad I got the DVD cheap at a store going out of business sale, because this was pretty awful. I bought "Soul Survivors" at the same time and both movies were similarly annoying with the constant realizations that you have been watching a dream. However , where "Soul Survivors" has nothing to redeem it, or have it make any sense, this at least had a couple of stylish notes, referred to above.

Interestingly, the DVD lets you go to the 8 'nightmares' where something actually happens, which is the only way to watch this. The scripting between the creative gore moments is rather unbearable.

3 out of 10.@@@0 -It really is a shame that films like this never snag Best Picture nominations, because this one is simply a winner. This is by far the most consistently hilarious comedy I have ever seen. Its screenplay and design are impeccable, not to mention the incredible cast. I can quote this movie for hours on end. Watch it.@@@1 -Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre.@@@0 -Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.@@@1 -Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!@@@0 -William Hurt may not be an American matinee idol anymore, but he still has pretty good taste in B-movie projects. Here, he plays a specialist in hazardous waste clean-ups with a tragic past tracking down a perennial loser on the run --played by former pretty-boy Weller-- who has been contaminated with a deadly poison. Current pretty-boy Hardy Kruger Jr --possibly more handsome than his dad-- is featured as Weller's arrogant boss in a horrifying sequence at a chemical production plant which gets the story moving. Natasha McElhone is a slightly wacky government agent looking into the incident who provides inevitable & high-cheekboned love interest for hero Hurt. Michael Brandon pops up to play a slimy take-no-prisoners type whose comeuppance you can't wait for. The Coca-Cola company wins the Product Placement award for 2000 as the soft drink is featured throughout the production, shot lovingly on location in a wintery picture-postcard Hungary.@@@1 -After the success of Part 4, another sequel was a natural move. However they should have stopped it before it began. Alice, having survived Part 4 finds herself pregnant and it seems Freddy is using her unborn child to get at his victims, which of course are Alice's friends. Strange Nightmare movie, very heavy on religious imagery and bad acting. The special effects are good, but the movie itself is not.@@@0 -The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!@@@1 -A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, the fifth installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and the worst sequel ever in the series, even worse than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street DVD box set for my birthday and I watched all the sequels. The dream child was the worst without a doubt, I was surprised too since they were doing so well with the last two sequels. But I guess they just lost the charm, the story was just ridicules and I wasn't happy with where it went. Alice just became more annoying, she's not Nancy or Kirsten, so her carrying this film on her own didn't work for me. Freddy is also loosing his scare, this was just getting a bit silly.

Alice is back and she's carrying a child, she couldn't be happier with her life. But Freddy is also back and he's not going to be too light on her since she defeated him so easily in the fourth movie. But anyways, he wants her child and to be born into the world again. Did you ever wonder if Freddy had parents too? Well that's what A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child investigates and Alice soon finds out what Freddy's childhood was like and that maybe that's the one thing that can defeat him.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child is just all in all a bad movie and an insult to the series. I don't think anyone could be happy with this sequel. Just the story was really silly, I mean it could have possibly worked, but once again, it was just executed the wrong way. I know that if you're looking to see the sequels for the Nightmare on Elm Street series, you should watch it, but I really wouldn't recommend it, it's not worth it, at least in my opinion.

3/10@@@0 -Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.

An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.

Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.

Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.

8/10@@@1 -This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.

Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.

The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.

This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.@@@0 -The first time i saw it i got half of it but i watched and i knew later on it was about a salem witch trials. They focused on the Sara Good's family. SHE is famous for cursing a priest which came true. In the film it depicts her daughter dorcas and her husband the spirit of Ann Putnam Sara's husband comes to the future hunts this girl to redeem her soul. which does happen at the end of the movie. Dorcas is depict as witch at 5years old who is burned at the stake. Which never happen Ann putnam saves her from the flames. the girl is safe she goes to Ann putnam's grave to to see that is not empty but it is at first because she accuse her of witchcraft, and lets her burn to death. Now that ann putnam saves her her spirit is redeemed, and she is not a outcast to society for the salem witch trials.@@@1 -Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens@@@0 -In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across "Burned at the Stake" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of "big bug" films and similar works years earlier.@@@1 -save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it.@@@0 -The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.@@@1 -At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!@@@0 -For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.

If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, "Life" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level.

@@@1 -Decent enough with some stylish imagery however the tiny budget hampers things.

I also get the impression they were trying to shock you with some of the graphic weirdo perv website stuff.

if you like anime in particular stuff like cyber city and the AD police then this might up your street.

but basically its low budget matrix cash in however not totally devoid of its own style.

Great soundtrack by some unheard of grunge/punk/post grunge bands. Worth checking out if only for the soundtrack.@@@0 -Picture Bride has an excellent look into Hawaii's past and the people who lived there in that time. The time, money earned and the hours that these people had put into their lives to survive and live, takes a whole new meaning to blood, sweat and tears.

The concept of dating/matchmaking is something like what we do similar today via the net. Just that is more of snail mail. Very slow snail mail.

The singing of the plantation's songs from the workers reminds me of the southern plantation workers' songs of their demise and future goals.

The movie shows the hardship as well as soft romantic scenes that Hawaii can bring. Like the stillness of a storm coming and the sudden chaos of the rain and then the tranquility.@@@1 -I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.

While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this.@@@0 -This is a great film. From reading other reviews, I can see that I'm not the only one who shed a tear. Tamilyn Tomita acted with such skill and conviction, she made the ending heartfelt and memorable. In the hands of a lesser actress, her last scene would have seemed trite and corny. One would never guess this film was done on a tight, limited budget. The cinematography is gorgeous and there are a number of big name actors. The script is so wonderful, I can see why they all wanted to be in it. If you watch the long, long list of credits at the end, you'll see that half of Hawaii pitched in to make this film happen, and for good reason. The soundtrack (available on CD) is absolutely beautiful and sets the mood throughout the film. My only "complaint" is that I almost didn't want the film to end.@@@1 -If this guy can make a movie, then I sure as hell can make one too.

In fact, if you hire me to make a movie for you, I promise to do the following:

1) I will add more naked women. This movie had none. I think cheesy B-class horror movies are only rented because of their traditional exploitation of the female body. I wouldn't want to let my viewers down.

2) I will refrain from making too many scenes where the hero wakes up to find out it's only a dream. I think HorrorVision had about 4 of these scenes. And, considering the movie was only like an hour long, the dream-to-movie-length ratio was quite high. And, if I do decide to do a dream sequence, I will make sure that the person wakes up without clothes on. I mean, who sleeps in leather pants??

3) I will not rip off any movies like Star Wars or the Matrix because I will know that my budget is small and I will not want to mask my contempt for big-budget Hollywood movies by adding satirical references about them in mine.

4) And finally, I will not mix modern technology with the undead. I mean, a palm pilot can only be so scary ... at least they turned it into an evil rolly-polly monster before the screen blew up or something.

So, if you are looking for the above qualities in your next horror production, count on me: wanna-b-movie director extraordinaire.@@@0 -I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.

I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train" and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, "Heaven's Burning". Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene.

I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005.

There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: "Gaijin" about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and "Sugar Cane Alley" about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but "Gaijin", sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is "A Thousand Pieces of Gold". This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun.@@@1 -I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).

A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name "Wife Swap"; its better to be called as "Mother Swap". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for!

Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show.@@@0 -It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line "God, you are so disGUSting" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!

The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.

Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun.@@@1 -This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.@@@0 -Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think......@@@1 -No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.

I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.@@@0 -Japan 1918. The story of 16-year old Ryu begins with the death of her father. As it will be revealed later, both of her parents have died of tuberculosis. In this desperate situation Ryus aunt has arranged a marriage with a Japanese man in Hawai, whom they know only from its picture. By her arrival in Hawai ryu discovers that her new husband is much older as in the photograph ,and that he lives in very humble circumstances beside a sugar cane plantage were he works on. Ryu not used to the hard labour on the plantage and in despair over her situation in her new home thinks of running away. She soon discovers that she has nowhere to go. The friendship to Kana, a female co-worker of hers, gives her new hope and strength. This picture is based on real events between 1907 and the 1920s, when thousands of Asian woman were married off to men in America, whom they only knew from their picture. This not very well known picture is well written and acted. The location is breathtaking. This film also features Mifune Toshiro in his very last screen appearance as a Benshi (narrator of silent movies). This film gives some insight of Japanese culture here and across the ocean. A must see!@@@1 -Lady in Cement - PI spoof with ole Blue Eyes.Frank Sinatra is a shamus on a houseboat in Miami in this rarely funny "comedy".Burdened by an annoying and repetitious Hugo Montenegro score and bunch of misfiring punchlines this 1968 flick just never rises above slightly too bawdy to be on TV made for television movie status.Dan Blocker is effective in the Mike Mazurski/Ted De Corsia big galoot role and Raquel Welch should thank her personal trainer.The only thing that makes the DVD worth keeping or seeing is the collection of cheesy trailers for Welch flicks like Bandolero,Fantastic Voyage , Mother ,Jugs & Speed and Myra Breckinridge.Even if you get the DVD-skip the predictable movie and go for the trailer library in the special features.Besides tons of mysoginistic asides-Sinatra lisps @ the homosexual owners of the local Go-Go bar.A relic that needs to be put back in the time capsule. D@@@0 -Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.

Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding.@@@1 -Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm…laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.@@@0 -Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.

The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out.@@@1 -Terrible film with Frank Sinatra as Tony Rome. Here, he gets involved with a dead woman below the sea.

Rome is soon hired to find out what happened to a woman. Naturally, it's the woman below the sea. Her room mate, Lainie Kazan, soon winds up dead on the floor.

An aging Richard Conte plays a police officer and friend of Rome. When a local club owner gets killed, the blame falls on Rome and there becomes an interesting chase scene. That's how bad this picture is if you have to depend on a chase scene to supply the action.

Raquel Welch plays the beauty up to her neck in intrigue. Her acting leads a lot to be desired.

Martin Gabel is a retired hoodlum whose son is trying to outdo him.

By the film's end, you don't know why the girl was murdered. Don't even bother to ask.@@@0 -This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.

There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.

Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film.@@@1 -The Lady in Cement is a veritable course on social anthropology of the late 60's. The writing, not the acting, is at center stage. Did I say - pure camp! Prepare to be offended if you are female or gay. Broad and dame are standard terms and gay baiting and bashing are represented for what they were in the day (camp- wise). Most of the lines are tossed off although there are wonderful performances by a very few outstanding character actors. The action scenes are mundane but it is fun to see Dan Blocker play a tough guy who likes bashing toughs. And Lanie Kazan and Racquel Welsh are at the voluptuous peak of their careers. Amazing to note they were both 28 years old and Mr. Sinatra was 53. The musical score, wait . . . was there a score? Well, you get the point. Watch it with friends who want a good laugh. it's full of them.@@@0 -Distortion is a disturbing, haunting film, about life imitating art and art reflecting life. Haim Bouzaglo, the director of the film, plays the role of Haim Bouzaglo, artistically blocked and sexually impotent playwright, who finds inspiration in his suspicions about the subject of his girl friend's documentary. As an Arab suicide bomber, disguised in skullcap and American t-shirt, wanders through the landscape in search of his target and his nerves, Haim transcribes his girl friend's life as she films her documentary and incorporates himself and his actors' lives during rehearsals. But the bomber has already struck and Haim has left the restaurant just minutes earlier. Despite the manipulation of time and space, the story is crystal clear, comprehensive and absorbing, a brilliant commentary on the "distortion" of everyday Israeli life, where the political is intertwined with the personal, where everyone lives "on the edge," and people never know whether they are playing leading roles in their own lives or are merely dispensable bit players in someone else's dramatic narrative.

Bouzaglo plays with this notion of everyone being an actor in someone else's production brilliantly. We are always voyeurs, seeing what the fictional director sees illicitly but also what the "real" director chooses to reveal. To remind us that these glimpses are violations of privacy, Bouzaglo takes us into the bathroom and the bedroom (sometimes the bedroom is the street and rooftop), and repeatedly frames his views within TV, video, or security screens. Actors play the role of actors who represent the "real" characters played by actors. Of course, each of the actors is the star of his or her own production, only dimly aware of their diminished roles in their fellow actor's personal films. The detective hired by the playwright becomes a character in the play. The actor hired to play the role of the detective seeks out the detective for "tips" on how to play the role, is caught by the detective on surveillance tapes, and they attend a cast party as their real selves.

Despite this multiplicity of views, there is no mistaking the clear lines of this narrative: the playwright searches for subject matter, the bomber seeks a target, and the detective stalks the filmmaker. Nor is there any difficulty locating Bouzaglo's ultimate target—enervated and impotent Israel, fully conscious of the threatening peril but incapable of meaningful action. Israel is Bouzaglo, the impotent fictional playwright cannibalizing his own life for his play. Israel is also the bankrupt soldier-entrepreneur who is the subject of the filmmaker's documentary, the cheating actors and actresses, and the cuckolded husband. They are all Israel because they are all helpless, caught in inaction or aimless action, as the bomber scans the landscape for his best target. All the characters can do as another bombing is reported is have sex and keep "score" of victims.

There is personal triumph, vindication, perhaps revenge at the end of this play within a story within a film, but viewers will be left aching for the state of Israel even as they are filled with admiration for Bouzaglo's memorable rendition of a nation's plight within the telling of an individual's story.@@@1 -Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls – you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab – you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called "style" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a "rich" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid – Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive – and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no "so-called" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.@@@0 -I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking.@@@1 -I did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.

At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.

At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing.

4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant movie.@@@0 -The premise is simple. This movies starts out looking like your average lame chick flick about two attractive young people meeting each other in an airport, then things take a 180 degree turn...

I for one, really dislike the kind of mind numbing love story nonsense that pollutes the average movie theater. And it is my humble opinion that Wes Craven, based on his previous meta-horror films (Sceam) does too...

Following this logic, it's not surprising to find that Craven sardonically takes his time to built up a nauseatingly sweet 'sependipity love'-story, only to have an AWESOME Cillian Murphy wreck that whole sugar-coated dreamworld...

The scope of his character Jackson Ripner (Jack the Ripper, get it? lame, right?) in this film is impressive, he goes from being utterly charming to being a twisted nihilistic sicko, which is a plus in my book. As he proceeds to freak out his victim (Jennifer Garner lookalike Rachel McAdams, who I found pretty annoying by the way), you can't help but sympathize with the guy...

This is Wes Craven, embodied in Jackson Ripner, through Cillian Murphy, bashing all brainless chick flicks...

Mr. Craven, I salute you.

Best quote:

Jackson Ripner (after beating the snot out of Rachel McAdams in the airplane toilet): "Thanks for the quickie!!!"@@@1 -This movie "Joshua" is extremely disturbing, and downright pointless. It actually makes me shudder to think there are people who would enjoy watching it. Without giving away the story it is about a young boy's reaction to his newborn sister, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. During the entirety of this movie the viewer is subjected to some of the most unsettling child behavior imaginable. Adding insult to injury, by the end of this movie there is absolutely no real outcome except the fruition of pure evil at the hands of a child no less, who outsmarted a whole group of dumb adults. There is no redemption, no justice served, and a whole group of adults who are not smart enough to see what is going on around them. Frankly, I did not enjoy watching this movie. It was extremely unsettling. Even for those who might enjoy horror movies, this movie could be too much. Despite the fact this movie was well acted, the story itself is so disturbing that watching it was equivalent to a 90 minute wait in a dentist's waiting room in anticipation of some painful dental procedure.@@@0 -Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars@@@1 -The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous.

I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.@@@0 -Wes Craven has been created a most successful killer-thriller movies of all time. After watching he's movies, you will find your new fears. People don't know, which Wes Craven's thriller movie is the best, because they all different.

In this movie, Lisa is terrorize by fellow-traveler. He coercible her to kill and if she don't do this, Jack will kill her father. Lisa is in the huge mess, because whatever she choose, she will kill.

Acting was unreal. Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy acted unbelievable good. The emotions was in right choose. Idea and script of this movie is great too...

Sometimes it reminds a "Scream", but he definitely better, than both "Screams" sequels together.

And what can I say - this is the best killer-thriller movie in 21's century yet...@@@1 -I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks?@@@0 -It was extremely low budget(it some scenes it looks like they recorded with a home video recorder). However it does have a good plot line, and its easy to follow. 8 years after shooting her sexually abusive step father Amanda is released from the psychiatric ward, with the help of her doctor who she is secretly having an affair with. The doctor ends up renting her a house and buying her a car. But within the first 20 minutes of the movie Amanda kills him and buries him in her backyard. Then she see's her neighbor Richard sets eyes on him and stops at nothing until she has him. She acts innocent but after another neighbor Buzz finds out that Amanda killed that doctor and attempted to kill Richards wife Laurie (this is after Amanda and him get it on in the hot tub). Then she stops acting so Innocent and kills Buzz and later on attempts to kill Richard whom she supposedly loves and cares for. And you'll have to rent the movie to find out if Amanda dies or not. Overall good movie, reminds me a lot of my life you know the whole falling for the neighbor and stopping at nothing until you have him part.@@@1 -As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon@@@0 -Great little thriller. I was expecting some type of silly horror movie but what I got was tight short thriller that waste none of our time. Mostof these movies we have to get into the back characters stories so we will either feel sympathy for them or hatred when people start getting killed. o such foolishness here. Yes you see a few characters but they really only interact with the principals. Such as the husband wife at the motel whose room was canceled. We saw them so we could just how efficient the Lisa character was and how inefficient the new Hotel clerk was. We see the little girl simply because she will have a very small but important role later in the movie when all heck breaks loose. THe Flight Atrendants because we need on in particular to move the plot ahead. The bad guy in particular needs her in the beginning of the flight. The rude guy in the airport was important to the movie too. The only 2 characters that were just 5 liners with no use to the plot were the two young guys on the plane. THat was clever because I thought they would have something to do with plot. From the first scene to the last the woman character a young hotel executive named Lisa is in charge. Even when Jackson shows his true colors she doesn't panic. She thinks what she can do to stall time. Any other movie the smart executive women would be acting like idiots. But not this one. It was a very short movie and I was waiting for the usual plot devices to kick in because the movie seemed to be coming to its conclusion fast. Thankfuly none of them were used. The new hotel clerk did not do the usual called and told her what to do, which is panic drop the phone and run out of the hotel without saying anything, or question your boss and tell her she had to much to drink and just dismiss her. Was Craven should do more of these types of movies. Also one last comment. Brian Cox is in the movie but I had not one clue who he was. I had to come over here to see that he is Lisa's father. He is completely unrecognizable.@@@1 -I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.@@@0 -I was bored one night and Red Eye was on and thought why not.

Red Eye is one of the best movies in a long time.

I mean I just got into the movie cause it was just so brilliant.

The story is new and different.

The movie also has two great leads in the movie with Rachel Mcadams as Lisa Reisert and Cillian Murphy as Jackson Rippner.

The acting is just brilliant and you get the feel for the people in the movie.

The music is just excellent, it give you chills and can also make you feel relax.

I just love how the movie was just so well done and it never gets boring.

Red Eye is just phenomenal. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's a excellent thriller.

Overall, I enjoy Red Eye so much that I can watch it over and over again.

If you like Red Eye, then I recommend Elektra and Cry Wolf.

I give Red Eye 9 out of 10.

Great movie@@@1 -I was interested in seeing this movie because I knew it was Christian based. The director had a good idea/intentions when making this movie but it could have been better. I can understand why someone would still have feelings for who they believe is the greatest love of their life. However, I didn't understand why the director made his friends so insensitive, mean and rude. The main character kept apologizing to his friends when they were the ones mean to him. They weren't understanding at all and they used God as a reason to explain their behaviors. The main character, nor anyone else didn't know if the ex-girlfriend was divorced, still married etc but they were against him resolving old feelings that needed to be dealt with. His friends were suppose to be Christians and should have been portrayed as being supportive whether they agreed with his decision or not. So many times we do things in life where we don't apologize to those we have hurt in the past and when he was trying to do this they were all against him. The ironic part was his new female friend accused him of having stalking behavior for simply looking up an old friend, when she did a really odd thing to get a hold of his name, address and phone number...she seemed to be the stalker!. she didn't seem like a friend at all but was only looking out for herself. God is love...and I think God wants people to be with the person they were meant to be with and i feel the movie did a terrible injustice by making it seem like God doesn't care about true love...only that you stay with someone you made a bad choice with. We all make mistakes...it's all about what steps you take to make amends. Like I said the movie had potential but I was tired of the one-sided point of view being constantly repeated and jammed down the viewers throat by his so-called...well-meaning friends. This movie didn't hold true to the Christian belief of love but i give it a C for its effort.@@@0 -Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.

Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.

Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.

Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content@@@1 -Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. "Wanders" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being "turned off" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he "drops in" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions...."I heard another Dave & Mary song!"@@@0 -(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...)

Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper!

It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.

Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!@@@1 -From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!@@@0 -Red Eye, a movie that id had wanted to see for awhile...Cillian Murphy plays Jack Ripner (jack the ripper) a managerial pose to Assassins, and his literally killer plan to knock off a highly profiled man and his family.

An everyday woman "Lisa" (I think) is a normal woman, goes to work, home...worries...hates to fly.

The death of her grandmother sends her on a flight which delayed several times.

a flight where she meets Jack...an ordinary seeming guy, until he suavely reveals his profession and plans, which coincidentally include her in them, she is the key to the Keefe's (sp?) death.

She succeeds in saving them...but nearly the cost of her life is taken, Jack is beaten...the Keefs are saved...oh what a story *laughs* just kidding, the movie is really good actually, the best of last year...there are small things that you have to pay attention to earlier in the movie that play a GREAT importance to the movie later... (the Frankenstein pen) I watched it several times before catching all the little jokes and quirks...

a must see for thriller fans no sexual, but there is a slight hint (the bathroom scene) (jack) "Thanks for the quicky" and the (female attendant) "Ohhh...its gonna be ONE of those flights" (second female attendant) "Hey! this isn't a motel" you get the idea...@@@1 -"A young woman unwittingly becomes part of a kidnapping plot involving the son of a movie producer she is babysitting. The kidnappers happen to be former business partners of the son's father and are looking to exact some revenge on him. Our babysitter must bide her time and wait to see what will become of the son and herself, while the kidnappers begin to argue amongst themselves, placing the kidnap victims in great peril," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

That acclaimed director René Clément could be responsible for this haphazard crime thriller is the real shocker. Despite beginning with the appearance of having been edited in a washing machine, the film develops a linear storyline. Once you've figured out what is going on, the engaging Maria Schneider (as Michelle) and endearing John Whittington (as Boots) can get you through the film. There are a couple of female nude scenes, which fit into the storyline well.

**** Wanted: Babysitter (10/15/75) René Clément ~ Maria Schneider, John Whittington, Vic Morrow@@@0 --A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.

-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with "Flightplan" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.

-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of "24" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.

-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing "Cursed" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.

-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.

-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half@@@1 -Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.

It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'

As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.@@@0 -This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.@@@1 -This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.@@@0 -Lisa is a hotel manager or owner and she gets on a flight to Miami. She ends up sitting next to an assassin named Jackson who tells her that she has to switch a room of a family or her father dies. The reason she has to switch the room is because Jackson wants to blow it up.

It's a great suspense movie because Lisa tries several ways to escape this ploy that Jackson has set up. The whole storyline is great and I thought that they could have spent some more time on the plane. There could have more to the plane but other than that, the whole movie was pretty good.

I especially liked the ending because it was heart-stopping. I didn't know what was going to happen and I was surprised by it. For me, this movie just took off.@@@1 -I wonder who was responsible for this mess. The jokes wouldn't have worked for gilligan's island. If this had gone to series, would there have been jokes about Auschwitz, or would Eva have to replace her oven, only to have Adolf suggest the kind that seats 50?? Another post compared this show to I love Lucy. The problem with this is that Lucille Ball was a genius at physical comedy and bizarre situations, and this mess was just plain badly done and an insult to my intelligence.

After the damage the Nazi's did to England and the number of people they killed, I would think the very concept of a comedy about Hitler would seem repugnant and most normal people would have killed this concept before any episodes were produced.@@@0 -"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.

One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.

A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....@@@1 -Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of "Whistle down the wind". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.@@@0 -Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one.@@@1 -**SPOILERS**KHAMOSH is totally unrealistic, lacks a plot, and was basically only made to see stars portray themselves. The most suspenseful scene in the movie was when Shabana Azmi is in the shower and then we see her TV playing the shower scene from PSYCHO. This movie actually expected users to believe that Naseeruddin Shah's character has a good enough memory to remember where certain shots were fired and how many!

***SPOILER BEGINS***

At the end, the killer spills his guts to Shabana Azmi long enough to allow Naseeruddin Shah's character to run up and shoot him!

***SPOILER ENDS***

It is a little humorous (only a little) in the beginning to hear the director and cast members throwing insults at each other and hearing Shabana Azmi exclaim, "Oh sh-t!"

Overall, a baaaaaaaaaaad movie!

Rating: ** out of ********** (2 out of 10)@@@0 -Like most people, I've seen Jason Priestley on TV and I think he's great. But I didn't know he had a sister! Justine Priestley is simply "mah"velous as the scorned other woman. Good music, intrigue, and a death scene involving Amanda's revenge on an abusive Dr. that will stay with you for weeks. I'll leave it at that. Kudos.@@@1 -I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.@@@0 -Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.

Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.

A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.

This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.

The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.

Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578

I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.

8/10@@@1 ->>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<@@@0 -Red Eye starts in Texas where hotel receptionist Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is about to catch the last 'red eye' flight back to Miami where she lives & works. While waiting for her plane Lisa meets the handsome & charming Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) & they both seem to hit it off, then when they board the plane they discover that by a coincidence they are seated next to each other. Once the plane takes off & they are in the air Jackson reveals who he really is & that their seemingly chance meeting was not a coincidence, Jackson says that he is working for someone who wants to assassinate the homeland security secretary Charles Keefe (Jack Scalia) & they need her to change his rooms at the hotel where she works in Miami. Jackson tells Lisa to phone the hotel & make it happen or her father will be killed...

Directed by Wes Craven who is perhaps better known for his horror films such as The Last House on the Left (1972), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1989), The People Under the Stairs (1991) & the Scream trilogy of teen slashers a short, punchy, fast paced little thriller like Red Eye seems like a big departure from the sort of film Craven usually makes. The script by Carl Ellsworth makes for a surprisingly gripping thriller that I must admit I really enjoyed, at only 85 odd minutes in length it's a very quick moving, economical & straight to the point sort of film that focuses almost entirely on one tight, taught plot rather than go off in various directions with lots of subplots. Some may like this approach like I did while other's may not but I think it draws you into the action a lot more as it comes thick & fast without the film slowing down any & giving you a chance to relax. I really liked the plot for Red Eye, sure a film like this is always going to have one or two questionable moments in terms of plotting but what the hell, it's a film made to entertain & for me that's what it did. I really liked the two central character's, Lisa comes across as very likable while Jackson Rippner (an obvious play on the name of the notorious Victorian serial killer Jack the Ripper) is a suitably slimy villain with a cold 'I'm only doing my job' type mentality. Another plus point is that I didn't think anyone behaved overly stupid here, everyone actually seemed like human beings & the films plays out in a relatively plausible fashion. I really liked this & it's one of Craven's better more recent films.

Craven turns in a good solid tense, tight, taught & fast paced thriller with an attractive cast, some good action & a gripping plot. He certainly doesn't hang about & once he starts the action & tension he never lets up, far & away the most effective part of the film is when Rippner is holding Lisa hostage on the plane & once the film switches to Miami & Lisa's fathers house it does become a little bit more routine but it's still good. A special mention goes to Rachel McAdams who is absolutely gorgeous in this, I could probably watch Red Eye again just because she is in it & looks drop dead stunning. Those who see Wes Craven's name attached to Red Eye expecting a horror film should think again since there's no horror in it at all (despite the IMDb listing 'Horror' as Red Eye's genre). I am not sure about the ending, on the one hand it was nice to see the villain live for a change which goes against traditional expectation but it might have been more satisfying to see Lisa kill him in some way.

DreamWorks apparently gave Red Eye an initial budget of $44,000,000 but reduced it to $25,000,000 although it's still a very well made film with glossy production values. Actually shot in Los Angeles & Florida in California. The film was supposedly written with husband & wife Sean Penn & Robin Wright Penn intended for the leads but eventually the makers opted for younger leads. As I have already said Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy & is a total babe in this & worth watching the film for on her own. Oh, & she puts in a decent performance too.

Red Eye is a really fast paced taught tension filled little thriller that I enjoyed immensely, I didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I did & I am glad I decided to watch it. This definitely gets a recommendation from me & Rachel McAdams really is hot stuff in this...@@@1 -Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.

Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.

However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they?

To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.

Ask yourself if you have a soul.

Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.@@@0 -Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.

What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.

As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale.@@@1 -I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.

1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.

Now the (few) good ones

1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" moments

Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10@@@0 -Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.

The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.

Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.

For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.

In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.

Short haul fun.@@@1 -If I could i would give ZERO stars for this one, but unfortunately i have to give one...

There is no single scene I could laugh about... but the game didn't make me laugh either. So if you're some ill retarded folk, go to your local cinema, watch this movie and give it 10 stars, like some people here already did.

but for me... in a movie where children are shot dead to achieve humor... good taste goes over the edge... this was the third time i wasted my time to see a Boll movie and it was definitely my last!

0/10... i'm ashamed of being from the same country as Uwe Boll!

PLEASE PLEASE KEEP HIM FROM MAKING MORE MOVIES!!!!!@@@0 -I also just got back from an advanced screening of Redeye and I must say I haven't had so much fun at a movie in a long time. WES CRAVEN is at his best ever. He brings us an amazing end of summer thriller I was so desperately craving. This is THE thriller of the year..no doubt.

All the actors are amazing and the action is realistic and fun. The F/X were great. It steadily built suspense. I was on the edge of my seat most of the movie. It's been a while since I heard an audience cheer and clap and get excited in a theater.

If your looking for thrills,action and a GOOD plot this summer, REDEYE delivers. Go see it!@@@1 -I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.

The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.

The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.

Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes.@@@0 -On an overnight flight from Los Angeles to Miami, Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming man who turns out to be a hired killer who demands her help killing a businessman or else her own father will die.

Red Eye is a terrific thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The premise is similar to Cellular and Phone Booth but Red Eye is better than both of those films. Almost everything about Red Eye is above average including the suspense, the acting and the direction. Most of the film does take place on a plane but that doesn't slow down the movie. The film is very fast pace and exciting with no slow or boring spots. Wes Craven does a really good job behind the camera. Instead of focusing on the thrills, he focuses on the story and the characters. The movie does have its share of suspenseful moments but that's not what the film is really about. I also like the way Wes Craven focuses on the other passengers and the small details that become important later on. Red Eye really shows his skills at storytelling.

Red Eye also works well because of its young and talented cast. Rachel McAdams gives a very engaging performance and her character is hard to hate. You may even end up cheering for her out loud. Cillian Murphy gives a very creepy and effective performance as the villain. The way he acts charming at first but then turns psycho is especially impressive. The supporting actors are also pretty good which include Brain Cox and Jayma Mays.

The movie is also very stylish and it has this overall creepy vibe to it. The setting works well since there is an obvious fear of isolation and no escape. Overall, the tone of the film is consistently creepy. The screenplay isn't as strong as everything else though. There are a few unrealistic moments that may distract the viewer. Most of them didn't bother me but there were of few that left me shaking my head. Also, the ending is disappointing. It isn't a bad ending just a very simple one and a different approach would have been better. Since the movie focuses on the characters, there is really no scream moments maybe just a few jumps. If you expect a horror movie then you will end up disappointed. In the end, Red Eye is an engaging thriller and it's one of the best movies of the summer. Rating 8/10@@@1 -Okay this is gona be short and sweet review...Something the movie should have taken a practice ina nd made its life shorter and sweeter than it was.

This movie is $^@%. There's a good reason there was a petition with over 40,000 + signatures ALL demanding Uwe Boll stop making movies from franchises people liked. Blood Rayne being a biggie there.

The jokes are good...if you've never heard them a THOUSAND times before. THe acting is descent but u can really only blame the script for that. I even a few moments wonder if they're even using a script.

The movie has little to NOTHING to do with the original games. HELLO if you've played the games u know the main character has no real motivation outside homicidal urges like mass murder because he stubbed his toe or simular. There's way too much story for such a stupid movie. like I said. I WOULDN'T even steal this movie. ANd for the person who says this is ' Funniest movie of 2007'..........need to take a look around, the news is better than this.@@@0 -Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy.@@@1 -I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values.

Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?@@@0 -Scream was Wes Craven's last decent thriller. Since then there has been nothing but an unbearable streak of Hollywood trash barely good enough for a blockbuster night, including the disappointment of the Scream sequels. Perhaps the genius and the craftsmanship devoted to the movie drained all the energy and creativity out of him, so that when it came time for supper, he had nothing to serve us but his own doo doo. Finally, after who knows how many bad movies later, he gives us a delicious, ruthless, gripping, chilling suspense thriller with Red Eye.

Rachel McAdams once again delivers an enjoyable performance as she plays a hotel manager who has the unfortunate connection with an important political figure and regular at her hotel. Then she meets Jackson Ripner (Cillian Murphy, Batman Beyond) at the airport, who she gets to know a little better after a delayed flight and a bay breeze. What she doesn't know is he already knows her. And he also knows her father, who she will never see again if she fails to cooperate and meet Jackson's demands- to use her connections to set up her hotel regular for assassination.

You're probably thinking this is nothing but your everyday thriller complete with predictability and chase scenes. Although this is a good old fashioned thriller, that's the beauty of it. No special effects. No cheap make up. Just classic suspense. You feel the desperation and regret with every decision McAdams is forced to make and you actually care for her as you cheer her on every move she makes to find an escape from her claustrophobic position.

As always she delivers an entertaining and convincing performance. It's either her sweet face or her uncanny ability to sincerely cry, but you always seem to sympathize with her if her role demands it. Cillian Murphy on the other hand is naturally creepy looking, so even if the trailer didn't reveal it, his ultimate transition from charming stranger to merciless jackass isn't so surprising. Perhaps it would have been more trippy to see a nice guy persona like Toby Maguire transforming into evil relentless madman. Nevertheless, Cillian Murphy, after his true identity is established, played the role so solidly you'd really want him to die, or at least get his ass kicked.

Don't overlook this feature. There are plenty of chalkboard screeching moments and heart jumpers that will keep your eyes on the screen instead of your watch like you would at Craven's recent pictures. If not for the you, do it for all the times you'll see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, or someone with popcorn jump and cling on to you. Wes finally gets it right. Aside from his trademark mastery in suspense, Red Eye is not without its humor as McAdams' replacement Cynthia at the front desk fumbles to keep the hotel in order. It was a relief that Red Eye wasn't a disappointment. Instead you'll get the pleasure of seeing McAdams deliver another incredibly talented performance, Murphy look creepier by the minute, and Craven craft a classic traditional thriller. A flight that was delayed and would have been the beginning of Craven's renaissance had it arrived right after Scream.@@@1 -Uwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.

Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, "Postal" wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.

At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.

After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.

This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10@@@0 -I had fun watching Red Eye. It's not a masterpiece, but it's well directed and structured. Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams are perfect in the role. Yes, it's the same old story with a different setting but Wes Craven gave it a good pace. At least not another Scream with the usual college killer. It's nice when you can see a clean, coherent thriller even when originality doesn't stand out as its main character. Particularly from a film-maker like Craven that has brought so many innovative ideas to the thriller and horror genre in the past and that now just lends himself to bringing home what could have been a good TV movie had it not been released theatrically. Good job!@@@1 -"Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned" is the third installment of the Gabriel Knight games, a series of adventure games about the roguish writer/paranormal detective, Gabriel Knight. Gabriel and his companion, Grace, have been asked by Prince James of Albany to investigate a series of mysterious attacks by so-called "night visitors." When the son of Prince James is kidnapped, Gabriel pursues the night visitors to Rennes le Château, where he begins piecing together a mystery relating to the Holy Grail.

Despite the marketing, this game is not about vampires. Vampires have a token appearance in the game, but never command center stage, as did the voodoo hounfor in "Sins of the Fathers" or the werewolves in "The Beast Within." Gabriel and Grace make no attempt to uncover the true nature of vampires, or to research lore on vampires. Although the vampires do murder three people during the course of the game, their victims are chosen at random and have nothing to do with the main plot.

A large part of the charm of the first two Gabriel Knight installments was in the relationships which Gabriel formed with the villains. Through these relationships, the player could not help but sympathize with the villain, and thus the villain was transformed into more of a human and less of a monster. However, in "Blood of the Sacred," Gabriel's only interaction with the villain is through a single, cheesy interview, which does nothing to endear the villain to the player.

The roles that Gabriel and Grace play in this mystery are fairly futile. Gabriel spends his time snooping into the identities of members of a treasure-hunter tour group staying at his hotel, but what he uncovers amounts to nothing more than a red herring. Grace spends her time researching the mystery of Rennes le Château, but all her research is rendered superfluous by the presence of a perplexing ally who has known the answer to this mystery for centuries.

The actions of this perplexing ally and his polar opposite --- the vampire leader --- are insupportable. The ally leaves hints about the mystery of Rennes le Château in broad daylight and expects Grace (and not the other treasure hunters from the tour group) to find them. However, he could have revealed the mystery to Grace in its entirety on day 1, instead of putting the kidnapped child at risk for an additional 48 hours. And in the end, he simply tells Grace the mystery in its entirety anyway.

Meanwhile, the vampire leader fails to achieve the goals of centuries of scheming, because he chooses to refrain from action for two days after the kidnapping of the child. The only reason given for his decision to delay action is that he wants to savor his victory.

The game would have been much better had it been purely focused on the Holy Grail. The kidnapping and vampires should have been omitted, replaced with a race against the Vatican to uncover the mystery of Rennes le Château. Since Gabriel is portrayed more than once as reluctantly Catholic, this conflict would have had many opportunities for character development.

All in all, the game was a disappointing installment in the series, despite an improved interface and the return of Tim Curry as the voice of Gabriel Knight.@@@0 -I saw an advanced screening for this movie tonight. I absolutely loved it. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all night. Cillian Murphy is extremely creepy as the villain. For those of you who have seen Batman Begins, his character was much scarier in this film. He played his character very well. The scariest "bad guy," I have seen in awhile. Rachel McAdams was great. Everyone in the audience laughed, gasped and cheered at the same time, as if we were on cue. The suspense is held through out the movie. THe amazing part is that the end was not anti-climatic. I was not disappointed in the end. I felt satisfied. The trailer does not do the movie justice. The movie is much better than the trailer indicated. Do not wait for this movie to come out on video. Go see it. Although, I did not have to pay to see this movie, I would have gladly given 10.75 to see it. Enjoy!@@@1 -SPOILERS: I'm always surprised at how many people gave this game good reviews. It was awful. The script and voice acting alone ruined it. Gabriel and Grace are the most unlikeable characters in the game. You almost pray for their deaths. And worst of all, there are less vampires in this game than there were werewolves in The Beast Within.

The lack of real vampires was incredibly disappointing. If you're expecting some kind of Anne Rice style vampire story, forget it. This game's story has very little to do with vampires. You won't even see any till about the very end and even then, you won't get to fight them.

The story has radical, and pretty much blasphemous, views of Christianity. I'm amazed it got off the drawing board. I'm not even Christian and I found it offensive. Mostly, the story centers around a search for The Holy Grail and buried treasure. The kidnapping of a royal baby, which should have been the focus, really gets pushed aside. There is no sense of urgency for Gabriel to find the baby. In fact, he almost never asks anyone about the baby after the first few time blocks.

The graphics are pretty bad. The characters move about at a snail's pace even on the best of systems. They are chunky and outdated. And it's hard to go from the FMV of The Beast Within to this horrible game engine for Blood of the Sacred.

The relationship between Gabriel and Grace takes an awful turn, too. I really don't know why it was so horribly rushed, but they do sleep together. And it's not fun. Gabriel spends most of the game telling his best friend Mosely how he thinks of Grace as more of a sister and he doesn't think she's the one for him. And he seems really grossed out that they slept together. But he's so unlikeable throughout the game, that you almost don't even care at that point. His dialogue was the worst in the game. And he was constantly making stupid sexual innuendos at anything female the entire game. By the end of the game, Grace leaves him with what appears to be a Dear John letter. I guess she was as fed up with him as most of the players were.

I found the story to be annoying and boring. I was expecting to play a story of a royal baby who was kidnapped by vampires. And I was expecting to get to see and fight vampires, maybe even have Gabriel or Grace turn into one. But no. Instead, the story focused on the author's warped vision of Christianity. What a shame. Here they had the elements for a great adventure, and instead we got this.

For me, the only interesting parts of the game were actually at the very end. We do get a few action style puzzles at the end. But it wasn't worth suffering through the entire game to get to them.

I can't really recommend this game. I had gotten it back when it came out, years ago, and I hated the game engine so much that I shelved it for years. I only recently dusted it off to see what I'd been missing. And now, I'm very sorry that I did. My favorite characters were ruined. I hope there will be a fourth game just to redeem the series. And I hope they get it right next time. It would be a terrible shame to end the series with this installment.@@@0 -This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.

Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical "obsessed killer" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.

AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.

Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget.@@@1 -Fashionably fragmented, yet infuriatingly half-realized character-study, an examination of the different personalities of two college roommates: a talented but undisciplined star basketball player, and a pot-smoking, womanizing rabble-rouser. We never learn why these young men are friends. They may share confusions about the world and their places in it, but they don't seem to have anything else in common. Making his directorial debut, Jack Nicholson--who also co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Larner, based upon Larner's book--doesn't introduce us to the characters with any clarity, nor he does shape the scenes to help us identify with anyone on the screen. There are some very decent performances here (particularly from newcomer William Tepper in the central role), but most of the picture is unformed (perhaps intentionally), sketchy or unsure. Bruce Dern plays the hard-driving basketball coach, Karen Black is the older, married lady Tepper is having an affair with, and Michael Margotta is Tepper's wayward friend (in an off-putting, over-the-top performance). Nicholson fails to set up the sequences with any particular flavor, preferring (I assume) to let the character interaction dominate the film's tone; his script is no help either, and as a result it is unclear whom we're supposed to sympathize with. Small, random moments do work (a supermarket fight between Tepper and Black, Dern visiting Tepper in his dorm-room, all of the scenes set on the court), however the entire third act of the picture is an excruciating mess. Hoping to juxtapose an all-important b-ball game with a sexual assault, Nicholson shows no style at his craft (nor does he earn points for chutzpah, as his staging of these events is squashy and ugly). When a director goes out of his way to humiliate his actors, one has to question his motives in doing so. Perhaps if "Drive, He Said" ultimately made some sort of powerful statement in the bargain, audiences could forgive the filmmaker for his lapses in judgment and taste. Unfortunately, the perplexing closer is as dumbfounding as much of the rest of the movie. *1/2 from ****@@@0 -What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.

Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.

Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.

The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up.

"Red Eye" is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, "Red Eye" might be your ticket.@@@1 -Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.

Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish:

1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...)

2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?)

3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.

4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art!

5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.

6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans!

As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.

This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...

Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.@@@0 -I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that…@@@1 -Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.

Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.

I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.@@@0 -'Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.

The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, "the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood." The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, "collapse in a heap on the floor" and have their lives forever changed by the event.

For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.

To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.

To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me.@@@1 -The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.@@@0 -I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.

Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.

Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.

I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them.@@@1 -Though the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century "Decameron" story collection.

Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.

Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.

Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions.@@@0 -This show is awesome! I have been a fan since it premiered, and it only keeps me watching... I've seen some terrible things here, that I wish I hadn't, BUT, it really shows you how addiction affects all involved, not just the addict. You can see all kinds of different addictions, from drugs and alcohol to the shopping addict, or the eating disorder addict. And actually, it's really sad to see some of the famous faces that have come through also. We've seen accomplished musicians, an NBA player, and even young people, who really need the help. And since they have started showing a few follow-ups, that's been awesome too. Now, you can see how they are a long while after their ep aired. If you haven't checked this one out, please do. It's on A&E, and it's awesome! The new eps are Sunday nights at 10PM EST, if I remember correctly... so set your TiVo!@@@1 -Yeah, I "get" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his "Decameron" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed "realism" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.

And Pasolini's "Decameron" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say "Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.

The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's "Decameron" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy ("Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's "Satyricon". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas "Decameron" fails by those same elements.@@@0 -I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinémas d'Amérique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4.

The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.

This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned.@@@1 -This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.@@@0 -This movie, even though is about one of the most favorite topics of Mexican producers producers: the extreme life in our cities, has a funny way to put it on the screen.

Four of the more important Mexican directors, of the last times, approach histories of our city framed in diverse literary sorts as it can be the farce or the satire, which gives us a film with a over exposed topic in our country, but narrated in a very different way which gives a freshness tone him.

With actors little known, but that interprets of excellent way their paper, each one of the directors reflect in the stories the capacity by we have been identified anywhere in the world, that capacity of laugh the pains and to make celebration of the sadness. Perhaps to many people in our country the film not have pleased, but I consider that people of other countries could find attractive and share the surrealism of the Mexican.@@@1 -Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay.@@@0 -I can give you four reasons to see this movie:

1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.

2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.

3. A surprisingly good cast.

4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts.

Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a "Peter and the wolf"-like anecdote.

In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.

And at the end, Fernando Sariñana returns to the dark humor in the "grand finale" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films "Todo el poder", Sariñana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.

Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.

And it's a beautiful life in Mexico...@@@1 -CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.@@@0 -There are people claiming this is another "bad language" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of "Cero y van cuatro" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider "Tamales de Chivo" the best one.

The movie is deeper than some "cabrón" and "pendejo" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously.@@@1 -As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!@@@0 -What an absolutely stunning movie, if you have 2.5 hrs to kill, watch it, you won't regret it, it's too much fun! Rajnikanth carries the movie on his shoulders and although there isn't anything more other than him, I still liked it. The music by A.R.Rehman takes time to grow on you but after you heard it a few times, you really start liking it.@@@1 -Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll

kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll

even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when

you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make

your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just

dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They

try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they

have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as@@@0 -I saw this movie when it first came out. It was an official selection for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and I voted for it for best picture.

Justine Priestley is hot as the psychotic, but complex Amanda. This is not your ordinary psycho movie. Lots of interesting and original slants on the genre. Sort of a "Fatal Attraction" for the younger set with some great blues music mixed in as the object of Amanda's affection is married to an up and coming blues singer who has less time for her husband as her career takes off.

@@@1 -I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".

I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.

So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.

Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.

The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.

(Rhetorical pause.)

In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP."@@@0 -A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..

This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.

I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it!@@@1 -After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.@@@0 -WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS, in my opinion, is a very touching and kind of heartbreaking drama about the consequences of being anorexic or bulimic. Anytime Lexi (Katie Wright) or Jennifer (Marley Shelton) threw up, I wanted to vomit myself. It's kind of hard to explain why. If you ask me, they should have been more cooperative about things. However, I did enjoy seeing them do things together as well as get lectured by their parents. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "If you ask me, WHEN FRIENDSHIP KILLS does indeed show you how being anorexic or bulimic can affect a person's body. " Now, in conclusion, I recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. You're in for some tears and a good time, so the next time it's on TV, kick back with a friend and watch it.@@@1 -Given that this movie was put together in less than a year might explain its shortness (81 minutes - including end credits, so roughly 76 minutes of actual film). But what it cannot explain is its lack of humor that the previous film possessed.

The gags are quick and sometimes not even funny. The only true funny parts are the quick spoofs on the Nike basketball spots, James Woods' portrayal of Max Van Sydow's character in the Exorcist, and bits and pieces scattered throughout the film. Very unfunny was the take off of Charlie's Angels, which like the first Scary Movie and the Matrix spin off scene, basically recreated the scene without much humor injected into it.

Today's youth might not be able to relate to the spoof gags of the classic supernatural horror films of the 70's such as the Exorcist and maybe of the 80s' Poltergeist, et. al.

Hopefully Scary Movie 3 will take some time to put together, making the spoofs more enjoyable.

One thing though, the film features more than the last one of promising young actress Anna Faris (whom I will admit seemed exceptionally hot in the sequel). Just for her casting and acting ability, I give this movie a "3" out of "10".@@@0 -I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!

It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of.@@@1 -The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.

The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.@@@0 -Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.

At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death...@@@1 -The first one was different and funny. This attempt should have never left the studio. This movie does not make you laugh. It is a weak attempt at gross out humor. The movie picks out current and old movies to rip-off. This time the jokes seem used and overdone. The audience that I saw it with only re-acted to Hannibal dinner scene and was otherwise asleep.@@@0 -I agree with the above comment, I love the realism in this, and in many movies (not just movies on eating disorders) the producers seem to forget that. They take an every day problem and create a hugely dramatic scene and then come the end of the movie everything is perfect again, which I dislike because its not reality. Not meaning to say things can't get better, and not meaning to say things don't in this movie, but it doesn't spend most of the movie creating all these problems, and come the end of the movie everything is perfect again. When people have eating disorders people don't just admit it and want to get better, and then life is peachy, it takes time, and I like how in this movie we grow with the characters, we go through the difficulties with them, getting better and worse, because it is a very important part of the movie. It gets into the minds of people with eating disorders, and shows the complications and pain, in a very realistic way, and I loved that. I also love how it shows The secrecy and betrayal people feel when suffering from eating disorders, it is scary to see how people react when they find out, especially if they approve of it. I thought this movie was very touching and beautiful and well told, and defiantly one of my favourites.@@@1 -I know a few things that are worst. A few. It had a couple of funny scenes. It is a movie not appropriate for kids but, only a child would find this movie hilarious. This is definetly a movie that you would like to use a free rental coupon for. Don't waste your money just to laugh a couple of times.@@@0 -There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.@@@1 -I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.

The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.

Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.

Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.

Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.

Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.

The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.

Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.

But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.@@@0 -I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this.@@@1 -Scary Movie 2 was a grave disappointment. Simply referencing movies, like Mission Impossible 2 does not lead to comedy. The movie opens well enough with a funny white people rapping scene and an excellent use of James Woods ands Andy Richter. The movie plummets from there unfortunately. The acting is awful. Tori Spelling looks and acts completely out of place. The movie looks hacked together and is surprisingly slow paced. Some of the longer gags in this snail paced movie, involving joints and a previously mentioned Tom Cruise movie, werent funny to anyone in my theater. The movie, thankfully, comes screeching to a halt at 83 minutes in a shockingly unfunny ending. (I say shocking because the ending does not even attempt to end with humor) I dont know what else to say except that is a sloppy rushed sequel done to make Miramax some more cash on the backs of dumb teenagers. Overall, a very poorly done movie.@@@0 -The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year.@@@1 -"Scary Movie 2" is a let down to the Scary Movie Franchise. Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4 were all good but this one was kind of boring and not very funny. Luckily they picked their act up after this one and made two more great Scary Movies.

This film is about a group of teens who get tricked by their Professor into going to a haunted mansion for a night. Things start to go wrong and then they realize they have to escape.

This movie isn't horrible but they could have improved quite a few things. It is a bit of fun and if you liked the other movies in the Scary Movie franchise then give this a watch - but I don't think you will like it nearly as much.@@@0 -First animated feature film from Ireland is also one of the best animated films I've ever seen. Its a real warts and all story that is unlike any of the other Oscar nominees and any other film from this year or any other year.

The plot of the film has the Abbot of Kells, a village in Ireland building a wall around his town to prevent the vikings from destroying the town should they ever attack. His nephew Brendon, is a young monk who does the best he can but meets the ire of his uncle by doing things in his own time. When a legendary illuminator Aidan arrives from a destroyed monastery, Brendon drifts towards him and his warm personality. Much to his uncle's chagrin Aiden offers to teach Brendon how to illuminate. In order to help Aidan work on his great book, saved from his destroyed monastery, Brendan goes out into the forest to get material to make ink. While outside the walls he meets Ashley, a forest spirit with whom he develops a friendship. Unfortunately the Abbot finds out that he went outside the wall and there is hell to pay. But lurking in the distance are the vikings...

Forget what you think you know about this film you're wrong. Even what I've explained doesn't do this film justice. Its a simple story with so much more going on. This is a wonderful movie about trying to find your way in the world, over coming demons and finding the beauty of the world outside of the walls. (As the film says the world is a dangerous place and doesn't cease to be even if you build walls).

Its a film that treats its audience as adults and deals with all of life including the darkness. There is death and destruction and joy and happiness. Its not sugar coated. People die. Monsters lurk. (it freaked out some of the kids), but in the end there is hope. Frankly the darkness in this film is completely unlike anything in any recent American film. Forget the "sadness" in a Pixar film, this is the real thing, and its refreshing and it shows how homogenized even Pixar has become.

Its a Genndy Tartakovsky-esquire (Samurai Jack) animated film who's look is actually based upon the the Celtic art of the period. Its a film that looks unlike any other. Here again is another film that takes the movie frame and uses it in every way possible. the Images are designed to fill the available space as much as possible. Often the film manipulated things to make it look like a page in the legendary Book of Kells. Its stunningly beautiful and best described as art come to life.

Director Tomm Moore has fashioned a film that is a masterpiece. I can't say more than that. Its a masterpiece. Its one of the best animated films I've ever run across.@@@1 -Scary Movie 2 is definitely the worst of the 4 films, for there is not much of a plot , bad acting, pretty tedious and some really cheesy jokes. But. And this is a big but, there is one good actor, one good recurring joke, and a good beginning. The good actor being Tim Curry, the one good recurring joke is the creepy,weird butler with the disgusting hand who always does cringey but laugh worthy things. And the good beginning is the spoof of the Excorsist.

The plot to Scary Movie 2 is the main characters from the original and a host of new characters along the way are invited to stay the night at a creepy old mansion, but will they survive the night? This film is not very good but if your bored you might as well watch it!@@@0 -This animated feature (a co-production between Ireland, Belgium and France) deals with what is surely one of the oddest subject ever for a movie: the creation in the 9th century of a famous illuminated manuscript, the book of Kells. In this fantastic retelling of that story, a prepubescent boy named Brendan, living in a monastery ruled by his uncle, a stern abbot who is worried preparing the defenses of the abbey from the impending attack by the feared vikings, must get into the forbidding surrounding forest to find the materials that a master illuminator named Aidan needs to finish the book. To do that task, in the forest he unexpectedly finds the help of a friendly fairy named Aisling.Gorgeously and delicately drawn by hand (there is some computer animation in a few key passages) in a manner that wants to resemble both medieval and traditional Celtic art, and with a very creative use of color and all sorts of geometric shapes, this film is relentlessly strange, but is a good strange, not of the off putting variety but of the eye opening sort. If one were to nitpick - beyond some anachronisms, like an African monk in 9th century Ireland – one would have to say that the blend of Catholic mysticism with Celtic paganism in this movie never really coalesce. And the comic relief is sometimes a bit too broad. That's why I cannot give them the highest ranking. But these are minor problems with an otherwise delightful and superbly imaginative film.@@@1 -I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.

The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.

The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately.

As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.@@@0 -As one other IMDB reviewer has remarked, this movie starts a bit slow, but gets considerably better as it goes along. Yes, it is released by Roger Corman, and yes, it goes over some of the same thematic ground as much higher budget predecessors such as FATAL ATTRACTION and POISON IVY. However, the juxtapositioning of the wife's career as a rising blues singer against the husband's gathering loneliness and his almost Freudian need for filling the emotional and physical "void" or "hole" while she's away along with the clever use of minimal effects and settings is nicely done. Utilizing a very small number of locations and characters, and also using water in almost every scene both as a cleansing and drowning metaphorical symbol throughout, this movie, though clearly suffering from a minuscule budget, reminds me in many ways of the more fully realized and more recent scenario, namely the French film "SWIMMING POOL" which it seems to me at least may have borrowed liberally some useful ideas from "UP AGAINST AMANDA." With a smaller tool set, UP AGAINST AMANDA maintains its suspense with a rudimentary, fatalistic view of surrendering to ones occasional lustful temptations, but accomplishes this as well or better as other films in this genre. The twist of the stepfather abuse of Amanda in the past (again, very Freudian) is also very unique in this genre and interesting. I agree with other viewers about the unexpected and sympathetic reaction for Amanda's plight this aspect of the story elicits. The cast is excellent I think.

@@@1 -I'll keep this short, as I know I don't need to say much.

"Alive" is a strange little film that obviously appeals to some, but I found it to be shockingly bland from almost the very beginning. The film did very little to make any of the characters likable and the story at times became so convoluted that I completely lost interest. As I said, I know others enjoyed it, but I found Kitamura's "Alive" to be anything but - a lame, extremely boring drama disguised as a thought-provoking action sci-fi flick. I felt like I was suckered into watching this film, based by its intriguing premise and uber-exciting cover art.

My suggestion? Pass it up for Kitamura's far more enjoyable freshman effort "Versus" or his 2004 riot "Godzilla: Final Wars".

...And don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good thinking man's film, but this certainly wasn't it. There was nary a moment that I actually cared about a single event taking place in this overly-preachy, dialogue-heavy movie.

If you wanna talk about something... talk about boring.@@@0 -A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.

Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.

The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.

The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.

The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.

Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!@@@1 -Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.

it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton@@@0 -While watching this movie I was frustrated and distracted and by the end, I wanted to give the movie a solid 4 or 5. I thought the animation was random and all over the place and there was too much going on. Even my A.D.D couldn't keep up. It felt like a slight acid trip. Everything looked flat, there was no dimension to anything. There were so many shapes, lines and patterns. I really wanted to stop the movie mid-way and smash my burned copy of this movie. But after I finish watching it, I went online to read up on the movie and I should have done a little research into this movie before watching.

The Secret of Kells is loosely based on the true story about the original Book of Kells. A small boy, Brendan, is given the task of penning new pages in what is set to be the greatest book ever written. This book will contain information that will help "change darkness into light." Brendan lives in the village of Kells behind huge stone walls. Taking place in the 8th century, Brendan's uncle, the Abbot of Kells, is trying to build the wall to keep the Vikings out. Brendan's uncle insist he help complete the wall, but a traveler and keeper of "the book" secretly trains Brendan to hone in on his illustration skills, and convinces him to complete "the book" and carry out it's word.

The entire time I watched the movie I thought I was missing something because I didn't really understand what was going on. I figured I was just missing a piece of Irish history. A simple Google search taught me all I needed to know about the original Book of Kells. After reading many articles, my opinion of the movie greatly changed.

The Book of Kells is a copied version of the first few books of the New Testament transcribed into Latin by Gaelic monks in Ireland in the 8th century. Along with it's paleographic and insular script, the book is also beautifully illustrated in insular art, a type of early art form know for it's intricacy, complexity, and miniature illustrations. Much of the art in the Book of Kells is depicted as lots of art was at the time, flat and dimensionality challenged with no perspective. But what makes the Book of Kells stand out from other early pieces of art is it's use of many colors.

The Secret of Kells is very colorful. I originally thought the animation was flat and boring. It reminded me a lot of the cartoon Samurai Jack which also had a flat and "amine" look to it. Once I learned about the art styles of the Book of Kells, it's obvious that many of the styles from the book are mimicked in the movie. There are lines and swirls and various shapes that inhabit Brendan's mind. Whenever he goes into his imagination, circular shapes resembling the sun, cogs, clocks and wheels begin filling the screen. The edges of the screen become framed in decorated moving triangles or circles. Transitions are filled with color, and Celtic knots. From the trees to the floors, many things in this world are covered in shapes or patterns.

Clocking in at 70 minutes minus credits, The Secret of Kells is a fun little history lesson with a little adventure and silliness thrown in to keep people (maybe just children) interested. I think one has to generally be open-mined to The Secret of Kells as half art piece, half movie about history. Despite looking like it was animated with Adobe illustrator, It's a very nice looking movie. But based on the 20 films submitted for Oscar consideration, I don't think it was worth being nominated over Mary and Max.

ThatWasJunk.Blogspot.com@@@1 -Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs.

The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic.

However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2.

1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.@@@0 -The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.

The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book which—legend has it—can turn dark into light.

See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html@@@1 -I don't often go out of my way to write comments, but for this I had to, just to warn anyone that might think that by watching this they will see a comedy. This doesn't come close. While the premise (change in colour/gender/whatever) is bad enough (and has been done, better, many times before)the actual transformation of two black guys into two white girls is one of the least convincing transformations ever put on screen. It would be bad enough if all that was required by the script was a change to white chicks. However the Wayans brothers are required to disguise themselves as two specific white women. As you will have guessed by now, they fail completely. I have seen drag queens without makeup make more convincing women than these two do with the best special effects and make-up people that Hollywood can provide. Its appalling. Add to the mix a basketball player built like a building, terrible dialogue and more plot holes than a golf course and this film hits a new personal low. And I like bad movies! Avoid like the plague.@@@0 -The Secret of Kells is an independent, animated feature that gives us one of the fabled stories surrounding the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript from the Middle Ages featuring the four Gospels of the New Testament. I didn't know that this book actually exists, but knowing it now makes my interpretation and analysis much a lot easier. There are a few stories and ideas floating around about how the book came to be, who wrote it, and how it has survived over 1,000 years. This is one of them.

We are introduced to Brendan, an orphan who lives at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland with his uncle, Abbot Cellach (voiced by Brendan Gleeson). Abbot Cellach is constructing a massive wall around the abbey to protect the villagers and monks. Brendan is not fond of the wall and neither are the other monks. They are more focused on reading and writing, something Abbot Cellach does not have time for anymore. He fears the "Northmen," those who plunder and leave towns and villages empty and burnt to the ground.

One day a traveler comes from the island of Iona near Scotland. It is Brother Aidan, a very wise man who carries with him a special book that is not yet finished. Abbot Cellach grants him permission to stay and Brendan buddies up with him. Aidan has special plans for Brendan. First he needs ink for the book, but he requires specific berries. The only way to get them is to venture outside the walls and into the forest, an area off limits to Brendan. Seeing that he is the only chance for Aidan to continue his work, he decides to sneak out and return with the berries before his uncle notices his absence.

In the forest Brendan meets Ashley, the protector of the forest. She allows Brendan passage to the berries and along the way becomes akin to his company. She warns him of the looming danger in the dark and not to foil with it. There are things worse than Vikings out there. From there Brendan is met with more challenges with the book and the looming certainty of invasion.

I like the story a lot more now that I know what it is about. Knowing now what the Book of Kells is and what it contains, the animation makes perfect sense. I'm sure you have seen pictures or copies of old texts from hundreds of years ago, with frilly borders, colorful pictures, and extravagant patterns, creatures, and writings adorning the pages. Much like the opening frames of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. The animation here contains a lot of similar designs and patterns. It creates a very unique viewing experience where the story and the animation almost try to outdo each other.

I couldn't take my eyes off of the incredible detail. This is some of the finest 2D animation I have seen in years. It's vibrant, stimulating, and full of life. The characters are constantly surrounded by designs, doodles, and patterns in trees, on the walls, and in the air just floating around. It enhances the film.

The story is satisfactory, although I think the ending could have been strung out a little more. With a runtime of only 75 minutes I think there could have been something special in the final act. It doesn't give a lot of information nor does it allude to the significance of the book. We are reminded of it's importance but never fully understand. We are told that it gives hope, but never why or how. That was really the only lacking portion of the film. Otherwise I thought the story was interesting though completely outdone by the animation.

I guess that's okay to a certain degree. The animation can carry a film so far before it falls short. The story lacks a few parts, but it is an interesting take on a fascinating piece of history. I would recommend looking up briefly the Book of Kells just to get an idea of what myself and this film are talking about. I think it will help your viewing experience a lot more. This a very impressive and beautifully illustrated film that should definitely not be missed.@@@1 -WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).

In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of "I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3." At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).

Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.

VERDICT 1/2* out of ****@@@0 -THE SECRET OF KELLS is an astonishing first animated feature which will dazzle your eye and move your heart. The shortcomings of the film's limited budget and sometimes limited animation are more than compensated for by the visual poetry of the story of young Brendan's heroic quest to become a master illuminator during the dark ages. Historically this was in the late 8th century, when the centers of Irish learning were over-run by the Vikings. The Vikings appear here as brute antagonists, the equivalent on the North Seas of the plundering Huns and Mongols further East. The film's narrative--- which functions more as a parable--- centers around the conflict between Brendan, who seeks to create beauty in his illuminations during a time of encroaching darkness, and his stern Uncle the Abbot-- who seeks to protect the town of Kells and his nephew with a looming wall as barrier against the Norsemen. The Abbot disregards the value of Brendan's art in his quest for security. This is the movie's outer conflict. Brendan's inner conflict is to find the hidden eye of creative illumination which will allow him to complete the most difficult painting in the Book of Kells. This eye is guarded by a Dragon Ouroboros, who destroys from within those not suited to this quest as surely as the Vikings will kill from without (That's as much of the story as I'll divulge!)

What I really like about this film is its creators' imaginative understanding of some of the greatest art work to survive in the West from 1200 years ago. The characters are stylized in flat abstract shapes defined by line just as in the original Book of Kells. (Particularly noteworthy is monk Aidan's pet cat, defined in few lines, yet purely--- and even magically metamorphically feline.) The range of emotion which Brendan and the other animated characters convey given their economy of abstract design is a tribute to the excellent artistry of the director and his animators. The decorative borders on the edge of the picture change to complement the dramatic impact of a given scene, and this characteristic of illuminations from the dark ages is brought to wondrous animated life in THE SECRET OF KELLS. Of course, historical dramas usually tell us more about our own times than the times which these dramas endeavor to depict. However, by introducing archetypal elements into this story, the writers and director of THE SECRET OF KELLS convey a numinous sense of lived-life from that far-off time in Ireland which feels psychologically true, however much the script might stray from pedantic historical fact. (The United Nations' band of illuminators who appear as a rogues' club of artists in The SECRET OF KELLS aren't historically probable, but they're all well-designed, individuated characters who do much to convey the universal appeal of this quintessentially Irish story.) Animation has always seemed the best vehicle to me to better help us understand the visual art of different times and cultures. The magnificent art direction of this movie clearly derives from its historical visual source, but has also been cleverly adapted to the demands of animated storytelling; if animation had existed in the Dark Ages, the SECRET OF KELLS is what it would look like! Finally, Brendan's hero's quest in this film is the artist's perennial quest to convey the spirit of beauty, life and inspiration. (Without being preachy or even particularly Christian, this movie affirms Jesus' dictum that "Man does not live by bread alone." ) In my estimation the most inspired movie about the creative process of visual artists is Andrei Tarkovsky's ANDREI RUBLEV, a film about the great Russian icon painter of the 15th century. The SECRET OF KELLS expresses much the same sense of mystery and exhilaration about the artist's visual quest and creative process. It's certainly not as profound as ANDREI RUBLEV, but--- heck--- its a cartoon! (And one which will appeal to young and old alike.) I think this movie will hold up well to repeated viewing: in its own modest life-affirming way, this stylized SECRET OF KELLS is a classic.@@@1 -I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.@@@0 -I would not have known about this film if not for its "surprise" Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature film. Thankfully, it came to pass that I was able to watch this animated little treasure.

The story is about the child Brendan who was the nephew of the imposing and overprotective Abbot of the township of Kells. The main pre-occupation of the Abbot is to build a wall to protect Kells from the attacking Vikings. One day, Aiden, the renowned illustrator from Iona, sought refuge with them. Aiden opens Brendan's eyes to the art of illustration and the lure of the outside world. Along the way, Brendan befriended the white forest sprite Aisling, as he sought to recover an ancient crystal invaluable to the meticulous art of book illustration.

"The Secret of Kells" is unlike most of the animation released these days. It is a throwback of sorts as the illustrations are done in stark geometric lines and design without much care for realism, as much as symbolism. The movements of these lines are reminiscent of the simplistic yet fluid animation style used at the beginning sequence of "Kung Fu Panda." However, it is the magnificent use of color that is the main source of wonderment for the audience. The reds used in the Viking invasion sequence is unforgettably haunting.

Try to catch this quiet gem of a film. It is a welcome respite from all the senseless bombast of current animated fare such as "Monsters vs. Aliens" and the like. The sparse Celtic musical score is effective in evoking the sense of fantasy that imbues the film. OK, the story might be a little shallow and the ending a bit wanting. I would have liked to know more about the Book that Brendan and Aiden was working on. But the clear star of this film is clearly its amazing stylized artwork, said to be based on the artwork in the real Book of Kells.@@@1 -I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.

However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.@@@0 -THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed...@@@1 -As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.

Fooey.

Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.

Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.

Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."@@@0 -The Secret of Kells is a film I've been waiting for for years after seeing some early footage at the Cartoon Saloon in Kilkenny. I'm here to tell you now it's been worth the wait. The cartoons are heavily stylised but not annoyingly so as I'd feared. The whole film is a thing of beauty and great imagination, I particularly love the animated illuminated book where the little figures come to life on the page. The characterisation is superb, I love Brendan Gleeson's voice as the stern Abbot and I especially liked the voice of the sprite Aisling. The forest is a triumph, such a beautiful place. The story is well realised, a mix of fact and fantasy. and really draws the viewer in to cheer on Brendan in his quest for the perfect materials for the Book. I'm a lover of calligraphy and illumination anyway so the subject is close to my heart, but all the people I know who've seen this and are not fans of the craft agree that it's a lovely little film. I will definitely buy the DVD when it's released, and would like to say, well done Cartoon Saloon and all the people involved in this mammoth project. May there be many more. :) Coming back in here to say that I bought several copies of the DVD as soon as I could and gave them out at Christmas, everyone loves it! And I wish them all the luck in the world at the Oscars, such a joy to see this nominated.@@@1 -This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.

The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).

I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.@@@0 -By 1945, and after a string of solid WWII propaganda pieces, Errol Flynn’s hold over U.S. box office had started to decline so, in spite of the increased burden of waning looks, he embarked on a series of films pertaining to that genre which had earlier made his name: the swashbuckler. The first of these was a good one actually – ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN (1948) – but it also proved to be his last big-budget Hollywood starring vehicle. The rest of his sword-wielding days were spent wandering all over Europe: in England for KIM (1950), THE MASTER OF BALLANTRAE (1953) and THE DARK AVENGER (1955), in France for ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN FABIAN (1951) and Italy for the aborted THE STORY OF WILLIAM TELL (1953) and the little-seen CROSSED SWORDS (1954). However, Hollywood did beckon him one last time to his old seafaring ways – albeit for a modestly-budgeted Universal picture rather than a Warner Brothers ‘A’ production to which he had been accustomed when at his peak…

Still, the glorious Technicolor cinematography leaps off the screen here and, while an older and flabbier Flynn may look like the pale shadow of his former self, his red-headed leading lady Maureen O’Hara has a field day as a tomboyish buccaneer leader who deep down craves romance and wants to be treated like a lady. Anthony Quinn was still a few years away from his larger-than-life starring vehicles, so here he is typically seen as the baddie – the pirate captain Roc Brasiliano, a role he attacks with gusto. Like THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH (1954) – a viewing of which preceded this one – AGAINST ALL FLAGS takes me back to my cherished childhood days of constant TV viewing when vintage Hollywood movies were the order of the day on both the local and neighboring Italian channels.

For all I know, this might well have been the very first pirate movie I’ve ever seen and I cringe at the thought of today’s generation of youngsters supposedly believing that the grossly overblown PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy is what buccaneering is all about! As I said earlier, AGAINST ALL FLAGS might not be the finest pirate yarn ever brought to the screen but it’s a solid example of this prolific genre all the same. Nowadays, the amorous persistence of the child-like Indian princess (Alice Kelley) towards her pirate captor Flynn may strike one as being awfully silly but the rest of it – despite clearly not scaling the heights of THE SEA HAWK (1940) and THE BLACK SWAN (1942), to mention the finest seafaring ventures of its respective stars – is briskly paced and reasonably engaging. Incidentally, the film would later go on to be remade as THE KING’S PIRATE (1967) with Doug McClure!

For what it’s worth, the unprecedented box office success of that unappetizing modern franchise is most probably what induced reluctant movie studios to dust off their catalogue swashbuckling titles and release them on DVD and, as a matter of fact, AGAINST ALL FLAGS itself was the one gem in a poorly-thought out “Pirates Of The Golden Age Movie Collection” set from Universal which also consisted of obscure dross like BUCCANEER’S GIRL (1950; with Yvonne De Carlo), DOULE CROSSBONES (1951; with Donald O’Connor) and YANKEE BUCCANEER (1952; with Jeff Chandler)! Value for money, perhaps but, so far, I have only acquired the Errol Flynn flick from other sources; even so, if the mood strikes me in future, I might wish to lay my hands on similar marine adventures like Edward Dmytyk’s MUTINY (1952), the afore-mentioned YANKEE BUCCANEER and PIRATES OF TORTUGA (1961).@@@1 -There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.@@@0 -Being the prototype of the classical Errol Flynn adventure movie and having a good story as well as two more brilliant co-stars in Maureen O'Hara (what an exquisite beauty!) and Anthony Quinn, I can only recommend this movie to all those having even the slightest liking for romance and adventure.

Hollywood at its best!@@@1 -I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.@@@0 -Icy and lethal ace hit-man Tony Arzenta (a divinely smooth and commanding performance by Alain Delon) wants to quit the assassination business, but the dangerous mobsters he works for won't let him. After his wife and child are killed, Arzenta declares open season on everyone responsible for their deaths. Director Duccio Tessari relates the absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, maintains a properly serious and no-nonsense tone throughout, stages the stirring shoot-outs and exciting car chases with considerable rip-snorting brio, and punctuates the narrative with jolting outbursts of explosive bloody violence. Delon's suave and charismatic presence adds extra class to the already engrossing proceedings. This film further benefits from sterling acting by a bang-up cast, with praiseworthy contributions by Richard Conte as wise Mafia kingpin Nick Gusto, Carla Gravini as Arzenta's supportive lady friend Sandra, Marc Porel as Arzenta's loyal pal Domenico Maggio, Anton Diffring as ruthless, calculating capo Grunwald, and Lino Troisi as the venomous gangster Rocco Cutitta. Silvano Ippoliti's glossy cinematography boasts several graceful pans. Gianni Ferrio's funky score hits the get-down groovy spot. Erika Blanc and Rosalba Neri pop up briefly in nifty bit parts. Better still, there's no filler to speak of and we even get a decent dab of tasty gratuitous female nudity. The startling conclusion packs a mean and lingering wallop right to the gut. A solid and satisfying winner.@@@1 -Having seen Versus previously I had high hopes for Alive. The description of the movie on the back of the DVD jacket sounded promising. Alive did not deliver. VERY slow development. Loads of potential with the cast and the cool visuals. The premise was intriguing but the payoff did not offset the build up. Could have done so much more at the end. Most of the movie is just " sitting around ". To put it plainly, three of us were amped to sit down and watch this movie and by the 50 minute mark we were struggling to make it thru to the end. It really needed more shock elements. If you are looking for Ichi the Killer or Versus type fights then save yourself some $ and loads of disappointment.@@@0 -A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.

But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time.@@@1 -I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films – just to name a few.

Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films – "Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense." Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his "masterpiece." In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of "art." People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly – no drama.

The most eventful scene has two people "banging" on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress – ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to "bang." The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of "character development." A truly misguided "entertainer" indeed.

Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically – for absolutely no reason whatsoever – for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer.

In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.

Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and – gasp! – Showgirls. How do you like them apples?@@@0 -"Against All Flags" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, "Against All Flags" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp.@@@1 -Need I say--its a stinker! (I gave it a rating of 2)

Only watch it if you suffer from insomnia.

There's plenty of scenery chewing and hamming it up, but not much else happens in this movie. There is no suspense, no deep, shocking secrets revealed, no real threat to the heroine's well being. A few disagreements, slight raising of voices--that's pretty much it. The secrets are nothing that couldn't happen to anybody - the last "secret" revealed in the film is totally predictable by that point.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around a young woman named Faith (Meg Tilly), who is an artist, who is hired to paint a series of mural panels in a huge ballroom in a vast mansion by a very, very wealthy, older widowed woman, and a growing mother/daughter type relationship that the older woman craves with her.

It turns out the older woman's daughter, Cassandra, is dead. You can pretty well fit the rest of the pieces together.

Even the scene with the mysterious man menacing our heroine does not advance to the point where you really fear for her safety beyond maybe a second or two. Why he's still hanging around years after Cassandra's death is a good question.

There's also the question of the fact that in this vast mansion there is only one servant, a faithful butler who seems to do everything--cooking, cleaning, serving the meal, answering the door, etc. Everything except apparently locking the door--since that would be the only explanation for how one of the characters just walks into a room where Faith is.

There's nothing that will have you grasping your chair arms, and leaning forward on the edge of your seat, because there IS no "mounting" tension in this film--just bland, pathetic revelations that get tossed out from time to time.

@@@0 -Excellent pirate entertainment! It has all the good ingredients to keep one's attention -- an absorbing tale of intrigue, a fiery lady pirate named Spitfire Stevens (Maureen O'Hara) who's attracted to the irresistible Mr. Hawke (Errol Flynn) who is out on a secret mission of his own. They make a fine romantic pair onscreen -- sigh!

Anthony Quinn is the mean, bad pirate weaving his villainous web of divide and conquer. I noticed the very familiar face of Mildred Natwick playing a supporting role as Mrs. MacGregor, the protector of young Princess Patma (Alice Kelley).

There is beautifully filmed scenery of shorelines, ships, and the bay. Lots of action too of sword fighting clashes, ship battles, daring leaps of Errol Flynn (Robin Hood on board ship!). From the flaming redhead herself I once heard in an interview of Maureen O'Hara that she boasted great command of the bullwhip and could also outdo Flynn in sword fighting in those days but there'd be no need to put it to the test here.

Very enjoyable movie.@@@1 -Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.@@@0 -Having seen Charley Boorman in Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor, I was very interested to see how Charley would be in his own show. I thought Charley came across as a lovely guy who is very grounded and down to earth. Its nice to see that celebrities struggle with their weight and fitness, it just show's their human too! I don't know a lot about bikes, but this show gripped me right from the start. The preparation and organising for this event seems immense. The event itself seems very dangerous and I'm fascinated to see why Charley and everyone else is doing it and how far he gets. I love the pace of the show and the fast upbeat music. I can't believe he broke his collar bone, I really hope its not the end, I cant wait to see the next episode...@@@1 -1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely…) in his recreation.@@@0 -The planning episodes were a bit dull, but when they reached the desert it was quite fun to watch. The reason why I call it the most realistic reality show is because, much to my surprise,Charley fell out of the race relatively early. When his hands were sore, I expected the usual stress and then a miracle fix, but instead he actually quit the race. The most anxious moment of the show must've been when Max was stuck out in the desert with almost no water or food! The ending was great and I was very happy to see at least one of the team make it. Overall, not as great as the Long Way Round, but definitely an interesting watch, as one gets a peek into the most challenging race in the world.@@@1 -I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.

The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.

Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.

I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.@@@0 -I always follow the Dakar, so when my husband bought Charlie's 'Race to Dakar' DVD home I couldn't wait to watch it! Of course we'd seen the broadcast of the race when the actual race was on, but that never gives the background and specific teams.

If you watched Long Way Round then you won't be surprised by the language which frankly I find more amusing than offensive.

I think the only thing that annoyed me about the DVD was Charlie's hair, but he had it styled before Dakar so my feminine need for neatness was assuaged; tho' I could have lived without the 'flame' undies lol As with LWR, the preparation was every bit as interesting as the race itself. I nearly cried when Charlie broke his hand, and winced at every bruise he sustained while training....and of course the death of Andy Caldicott...that was an appalling tragedy, but then every year there's something.

Russ drives me nuts, although his attitude has improved a thousand times from the argumentative cynic he was in LWR. It's great to see him get along so well now with Charlie.

What I learned from this odyssey was - 1. never let Scorpion prepare your vehicle for ANYTHING! - they had months to prepare the X5, and still the day before the team left for Lisbon, Scorpion had only done half of things that needed to be done, and the vehicle was a pain throughout the whole race; 2. the Dakar organizers need to put a lot more work into their rider/driver retrieval plan - leaving Matt (and presumably a large number of other riders/drivers out to dry the way they did was nothing short of culpable negligence; 3. Charlie has an endearing enthusiasm for 'rough and tough' adventure but needs to toughen up a lot to really perform as he'd like; and finally, 4. Charlie and Ewan are planning another of these epos called the Long Way Down in 2007, and I can't wait to get my hands on it! :D If you love bikes and/or genuinely nice blokes 'having a go', you have to watch this, I guarantee you love it. It's very entertaining.

In conclusion, to Simon Pavey - you sir are a hero, I was so impressed by the your 'quiet achiever' manner and the fact that you actually finished.....just incredible considering what an monumentally difficult race it is. And to Charlie, Matt and the rest of the team - full marks for pulling it off. To think that a relatively green team could have achieved so much is truly admirable. You're all wonderful.@@@1 -Yes I know "talkies" had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed "hammy" stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see "Titanic" (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)"Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious "SOS Titanic" (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in "A Night to Remember"(still the best feature film - please read my "Tribute to Walter" comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled "End of a Dream" so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The "old Rose" in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.@@@0 -If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!

The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this.

The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.

If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike.@@@1 -No movie with Madeleine Carroll in its cast could possibly be unwatchable. That said, I have to add that this British film comes close. The story takes place on board the `SS Atlantic' and it's loosely based on the `Titanic's' unfinished voyage. The word `unsinkable' is spoken, the liner strikes an iceberg, and we hear a heavenly choir sing `Nearer My God to Thee.' The doomed passengers eventually take over the anthem, in a clever bit of sound work. But the year of the film's release (1929) means that a modern viewer has to accept otherwise primitive sound and many of the acting conventions of silent films and the stage. These aren't problems. The film's major flaw is pacing, and pacing had been well developed in silents. However, if the dialog were delivered at a realistic speed, the movie's running time would be cut in half. The intended effect was drama (and clarity in a new medium), but the result unhappily is tiresome now. The film's structure is preposterously illogical and inept. Paradoxically, I found certain details of the editing quite modern in technique: fine, abrupt cuts from one area of the ship to another, sometimes even on sound effects. Although we're on board the `Atlantic' from the first shot, we were well over 4 minutes into the movie before I discovered that fact. There are long, intrusive musical passages by the ship's dance orchestra. (Entertaining, easy sound.) Personal stories are presented in an utterly uninvolving and unconvincing way. Don't even think of spectacle. The berg is a tiny thing and the exterior damage it does to the ship's hull is a minor dent. However, the scenes of passengers swarming into the lifeboats - clearly staged on a real liner, presumably tied up to a dock - generate great excitement. Other than the glorious Miss Carroll, these sequences are the film's only points of excellence. As the movie and the ship near their end, the screen goes totally black several times when the power generators begin to fail. Their last, eternal blackout is the end of the film, with a sunset/sunrise tacked on, a clumsy symbolic effect. `Atlantic' is a cinema curiosity. At best.

@@@0 -I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.

Highly recommended series, i want more!!@@@1 -This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A.

It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch.

Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.@@@0 -Clara Bow (Hula Calhoun) is daughter of plantation owner Albert Gran (Bill Calhoun), who is mainly interested in playing cards and boozing with friends. She's interested in riding in the countryside until engineer Clive Brook (Anthony Haldane) shows up to build a dam. One of her father's friends Arlette Marchal (Mrs. Bane) then competes for his attentions. His wife Maude Truax (Margaret Haldane) shows up for the contrived finale.

Lots of 'pre-code' elements like nude bathing.

Wonderful location shooting in Hawaii.@@@1 -For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.@@@0 -clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."@@@1 -First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.

The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.

I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.@@@0 -Alain Delon visits swift, sure vengeance on the ruthless crime family that employed him as a hit-man in the Duccio Tessari thriller "Big Guns" after they accidentally murder his wife and child. Tessari and scenarists Roberto Gandus, Ugo Liberatore of "A Minute to Pray, a Second to Die," and Franco Verucci of "Ring of Death" take this actioneer about a career gunman for the mob right down to the wire. Indeed, "Big Guns" is rather predictable, but it still qualifies as solid entertainment with lots of savage and often sudden killings. Alain Delon of "The Godson" is appropriately laconic as he methodically deals out death to the heads of the mob families who refused to let him retire so that he could enjoy life with his young son and daughter. Richard Conte of "The Godfather" plays a Sicilian crime boss who wants to bury the hatchet with the Delon character, but the rest of his hard-nosed associates want the hit-man dead. Like most crime thrillers in the 1960s and 1970s, "Big Guns" subscribes to the cinematic morality that crime does not pay. Interestingly, the one man who has nothing to do with the murder of the wife and son of the hero survives while another betrays the hero with extreme prejudice. Tessari does not waste a second in this 90-minute shoot'em up. Apart from the mother and son dying in a car bomb meant for the father, the worst thing that takes place occurs in an automobile salvage yard when an associate of the hero is crushed in a junked car. Ostensibly, "Big Guns" is a rather bloodless outing, but it does have a high body count for a 1973 mobster melodrama. Only at the last minute does our protagonist let his guard down and so the contrived morality of an eye for an eye remains intact. Tessari stages a couple of decent car chases and the death of a don in a train traveling through a train tunnel is as bloody as this violent yarn gets. The photography and the compositions are excellent.@@@1 -I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.@@@0 -OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.

Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.

Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb.@@@1 -This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.@@@0 -Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.@@@1 -The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.@@@0 -There's a theory of time that posits that all the moments that ever existed and will exist, actually exist right now. It's a bit too much to wrap your head around, but perhaps a bit of a comfort to those who wish they could go back to a simpler time and place. For Barbara Jean Trenton (Ida Lupino), that time was twenty five years earlier, the mid 1930's when her youth and glamor held the greatest promise. For my part, if I could travel through time, it would be back to the 1950's when I grew up. Maybe to a place like Willoughby, but that's another episode.

One thing that wouldn't be so special about 1959 would involve dealing with all that clunky machinery just to watch an episode of "The Twilight Zone". How many reels do you think it would take to catalog the entire series, and then find a particular story you wanted to watch? I guess you have to consider the trade offs, convenience versus simplicity, having it right now or taking the time to spool it up to the exact spot where the story begins. Popping in a CD has it's advantages.

I'm a little surprised that Rod Serling would pen a story that so closely resembled "Sunset Boulevard". Ida Lupino's character mirror imaged Norma Desmond just a bit too closely to be considered an original concept. Martin Balsam portrays very much a similar character to Erich von Stroheim, the husband turned butler who's loyalty is unquestioned. Where the story diverges has to do with the way Danny (Balsam) and Sall (Ted de Corsia) challenge Barbara Jean to get with reality and clear the cobwebs that paralyze her existence.

Fortunately for us viewers, Ida Lupino had no such reservations about taking parts that were 'not big, but a nice showcase'. It's a real treat to watch any episode of "The Twilight Zone" and get to see who pops up from days gone by. Sometimes you get a two-fer, like you have here with Lupino and Balsam, celebrities who sometimes made their mark before the series began, and sometimes after. Combined with the stories that the program produced, it's not surprising that they still manage to entertain so well today.@@@1 -Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...@@@0 -I really enjoyed this episode, which was a great surprise given the bad reputation it seems to have acquired. From a pure writing perspective, 'The 16mm shrine' is an absolute treat, with fantastic dialogue and character analysis, typical of Sterling. In particular I really enjoyed the philosophical indulgences of the episode, tackling themes of existence and reality, whilst balancing it with more psychological topics such as denial, pride, and desire. 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine' is an episode about how these ideas based around an unwillingness to accept change can seemingly alienate a person from the rest of the ever-changing world. It is also a fantastic example of cerebral Twilight Zone; one that explores the mind rather than the world outside it. These elements all come together very nicely to create a thought provoking and incredibly interesting 25 minutes.

The episode is not without its faults however, which mainly lay in Lupino and Leisen shoes. Ironically, I felt Lupino was unconvincing throughout, with only a few scenes that could count as memorable. This of course being an absolute shame considering how well Sterling had written her character. Furthermore Leisen didn't seem to know what to do with most of his characters, sometimes having them stand around on set doing next to nothing -which probably explains why accepted the poor performances from Lupino half the time-. Thankfully Balsam does a good job of covering up a lot of weak spots, helping redeem the show from an acting perspective at least.

As I said previously however, if you're a fan of classic film and cerebral science fiction, this shouldn't be as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. In addition to the writing that I mentioned above, the episode also features some fantastic photography (it still amazes me that the show looks this good nearly fifty years later!) and decent enough set-design. Overall 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine" is a great episode and above all is certainly one to make you think.@@@1 -Three story lines and not enough tying them together, "Inside Man" was very jumpy and an incomplete attempt to be artistic and realistic. Though having its moments, the movie started off looking like a fast thriller which quickly grounded to a slow crawl, jumped quickly between highs and lows, and only barely picked up steam again near the last 20 minutes. I will give credit to Denzel Washington, he played his part extremely well with a full grasp of his human side and not just the typical "super-detective" with all the answers. Clive Owen also did quite well with his duality part as "evil genius" and "criminal mastermind" (both not the same in retrospect). Overall though, each person individually created a great sub-section. Yet, when the parts finally came together and everything counted, there was no sudden "ah-ha!" or summation of everything. It all ended up with very little of the energy it began with, with a lot of plot-holes, tons of questions, and as I said earlier, no where near Spike Lee's normal level. I have to completely disagree with the so-called "professional critics"... this is not the movie they play it up to be.@@@0 -After hitting the viewers with three very different episodes right off the bat, Serling continued to go about introducing viewers to 'The Twilight Zone' in a very strange way by scheduling one the series biggest growers as the fourth episode. 'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' is one of the more understated episodes, focusing on an aging movie star's inability to cope with the changing times and only introducing a supernatural element in the closing minutes. Because of this approach, the episode is under whelming at first but subsequent viewings reveal it to be a thoroughly classy and beautifully written short story.

Both the leads, Ida Lupino as Barbara Jean Trent and Martin Balsam as her frustrated but caring agent, shine in their performances. The main problem with the episode is that the supposedly 25 year old footage of the actress is unconvincing. Lupino looks identical when playing the young Trent as she does when playing the middle aged Trent and this diminishes the tragedy of the situation significantly. Fortunately, Lupino acts her socks off in convincing us of her desperation to return to the past. It's a situation most can sympathise with, and yet Trent is far from a sympathetic character. She is a prima-donna who gives little thought to the feelings of those around her, such as the disastrously withered co-star who she tactlessly belittles because he reminds her of just how long ago her glory days were. It is somewhat surprising, then, that she is rewarded with a happy ending. It is clear what is going to happen from the moment we see the huge projection screen and it is cleverly pre-empted in the opening moments when Trent scares her maid by stepping out from behind the screen. What is not clear at the beginning, however, is whether being sucked into the projector will prove a reward or a harsh lesson in appreciating what we have and living in the moment. As it turns out, Trent is allowed to return to the past she longed for, a testament to how strong the wishful thinking of humans can be.

'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' gets better with each viewing. The top notch writing and acting combine to create a short play of enormous power which reflects the nature of humans to long for the past, even though we can never return. Except in the Twilight Zone.@@@1 -This movie makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice.@@@0 -I found this movie really funny because you have a youthful black comedian (Chris Rock) who dies and is sent back to earth in a mid-50's white mans body. He doesn't realize that his behavior should change and continues to act as he had before. He listens to rap music, sings along, and plays the stereotypical part of an urban black man. The real humor in this movie was watching the trouble that this behavior gets him into with the black community.@@@1 -This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.

I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.

And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?

None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.

The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.@@@0 -THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny@@@1 -Movie: There are some very interesting comments on IMDb about this movie. Its truly awful. Not enough money is spent on the movie and the way Spike Lee has made it, it seems like a combination of an indie film and an action flick. Characters/Actors: Denzel has done "EXACTLY" what he does in every movie, so no surprise there. Here is a little mind game for the readers. Quickly think of 10 Denzel movies. Now count how many of them were in which he played a cop/detective/body guard, whatever. Clive Owen, hmmmmmm, this guy needs a better role on his plate soon. His best performance was I think in "Beyond Borders". Other than that he did pretty much the same thing as he does in every movie as well. His tone and way of talking was very similar to what he did in "Sin City". Surely this guy knows acting, what he doesn't know is better way of choosing roles. He is in desperate need of a better agent. Jodie Foster was brilliant in the movie, if you are watching her for the first time in your life. She has done better. She has had better roles. It so happens in Hollywood that even the biggest stars fall down on their knees and pick up low class roles as Jody Foster did in this movie. Plot: Plot was not confusing, in fact, I could think of such a plot, in fact the whole movie, while taking a dump after a nice big Chinese dinner. I mean come on, ****SPOILER ON THE WAY----> I am sick of the un-necessary Haulocast and the Racism token. The movie is about bank robbers, why put the Haulocast and the Racism in there, nice try playing with people's emotions, worked on anyone? NOT ME. Police let the bank robbers go thinking they were hostages? Riiiiiiight, please, we're talking about US police force and security here. Nobody could find out where Clive was, I mean they didn't find anything different with that room. Who're we kidding? Conclusion: Sure, go watch this movie, if nothing, you'll have a nice time talking to you friends how bad the movie was. At least people won't think you're stupid to go watch this movie because they'd think you went to watch it because it has a big star cast "MISTAKE".@@@0 -My fondness for Chris Rock varies with his movies,I hated him after Lethal Weapon 4,but I hated everyone in that movie after it.I like him when he is himself and not holding back,like in Dogma. Well this is his best yet,wasn't expecting this to be that good.Laughed my arse off the whole time. Chris Rock delivers a sweet wonderful story backed by some of the funniest comedy I've seen in quite some time. Loved it.@@@1 -A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender – his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.@@@0 -Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.@@@1 -My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.

The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.

Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).

My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.

The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.

Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.@@@0 -Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.

As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.

There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.

Well to the actual plot of the film.

Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie!@@@1 -I have never seen any of Spike Lee's prior films, as their trailers never caught my interest. I have seen, and admire Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster's work, and have several of their DVDs. I was, however, entirely disappointed with this movie. If this film is any indication of Spike Lee's ability as a director, my advice would be to "get a job", and stop wasting the time and talent of others.

I wonder if some of the other IMDb commentators watched the same movie that I'd seen. I can only assume, from their sappy lovelorn reviews, that their adoration of Spike Lee has blinded them to the banality of this piece of work. I only paid $2.50, in a "Second Run" theater, and still felt I'd wasted my money.

The IMDb "Trivia" page says it all.......

* "Shot in 39 days" -- How can you expect to shoot a big budget "Blockbuster", (as the media hype promised), in such a short time? No wonder there was such a weak performance by all.

* "Ron Howard was first going to direct the film..." -- He may have done this project some justice, given more time to do so, of course. Though the writing was atrocious, the premise had some merits.

OK! maybe not. I'm sorry! This film was so rife with pitiful cliché's, implausible scenes, and lousy characterizations, that maybe even he couldn't have made much of it. (Hey Ron! Be sure to thank Russell...Good call!)

* "Jodie Foster filmed her part in three weeks." -- And it showed! Her portrayal of a "Fixer", who makes people's problems go away, was as unbelievable as the script she was given. Did she even want to be there?

Other Peeves:

* How many bank robbers would bother to come to the door, and inform a uniformed police officer that they were inside robbing the bank, and he'd better keep away...or else?

* When "Detective Frazier", (Denzel Washington), comes into the bank to verify there are no corpses yet, how many bank robbers, without a gun, would have "led" a cop, (much less "let" a cop) back out to the front door, allowing the police officer to walk behind him?

* Det. Frazier later claimed, to have given the robber "every reason to shoot me." Why, then, in their brief struggle, didn't he even try to expose the robber's face? That may have gotten the response he was looking for...a robber would have shot him just to prevent later identification. And why did it take "Steve, Stevie, Steve-O", (the robber's accomplice), so long to come and help out?

* I understand that these weren't your typical bank robbers. They had a different agenda, and didn't want anyone harmed. But the cops had no reason to think that they wouldn't. To them it was a desperate situation. Why then, when two of the bad guys stepped outside to "pick up the pizzas?", were they not taken down. (first of all, how many robbers would have came outside without using a hostage as a shield? Is this Spike Lee's version of NY City, or SNL's?). Taking them down would have reduced the bad guy's numbers, screwed up their plans, and the remaining robbers would more probably have given up. If not, there at least would be fewer bad guys inside. (Give SWAT something to do, or send them home!)

* What police department in this country, would have allowed Madeline White, (Jodie Foster), to just waltz right into the bank, and discuss a matter with the robbers, that she would not disclose to them first? She had no authority, no governmental credentials; and besides, this was after all, "already" a hostage situation...add one more?

* Why wouldn't the Bank CEO, (Christopher Plummer), just have destroyed the incriminating documents a long time ago? Screw sentimentality! The diamonds, he could have sold.

* Who was that "schmuck", (the character, not the actor), with the Jersey accent, that, conveniently, volunteered, and said he knew the recording was "100% Albanian", but yet he himself couldn't speak it.....SIR! PUT YOUR HAND DOWN! And his Ex-wife! What a "schlump" she was!!! Both were totally unbelievable.

* When interrogating suspects, why did Det. Frazier, continually harass the individuals who were obviously not a part of the heist?, (i.e. - telling the elderly woman she could go, and then she couldn't, then could; then couldn't?) Give me a break!

* Who, after seeing the bank robbers demand that the hostages put on jump suites, couldn't deduce their escape plan included coming out of the bank pretending to be some of the hostages?

* Near the end of the movie, a false wall was shown to have been built in the supply room, behind which Clive Owens hid out for "a week"....where did the materials come from? (the drywall & studs). It was also to be assumed that they cut into the sewer, so he could relieve himself. The bank employees hadn't complained about the smell, all week long? Hello!

* After such a debacle; since the documents "had" fallen into the robber's hands, what kind of "references" was Ms. White expecting to get from the bank CEO, seeing that he was now to be a target for blackmail, due to her failure?

* And last, but certainly not least, What's with the "Electric Glide" that Denzel did? HOW STUPID! Was that supposed to indicate his "resolve" to bring these guys to justice? He looked, rather, like a man who hopped a ride on a shopping cart, while trying to prevent a bowel movement! "Cheeee-Zheeee"!!!!

Other than the mediocre plot; lousy script; bad acting; and overall pitiful directing......yada, yada, yada.

Hopefully this will give enough insight into the movie to help others decide whether to waste their money or not!

.@@@0 -Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is fun—it is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. "Arzenta" is an unpretentious ,yet very likable film—much better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth.

I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.

The score is very fine, with a good introductory song—making felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.

In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).

"Arzenta" is interestingly filmed—an ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc..@@@1 -I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.

Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon.

Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.

Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.

Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.@@@0 -This movie i have been dying to see. Well it took till now to decide to actually rent it. It was completely worth it. This movie made me laugh from the beginning to the end. Chris Rock is funny no matter which movie he is in. However, this should come real close to being his greatest. If ur lookin for a family movie, ie pre-teens and up then this is one u can't pass over.@@@1 -It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto!@@@0 -Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...

Still a good 7/10 for me.@@@1 -It seems to me that Stephen King's "Bachman" pen-name was a way for him to put out some of the grimmer, rawer, more mean-spirited stuff that he wanted to write without 'contaminating' his 'brand name'. If you look back at the "Bachman Books" (Running Man, The Long Walk, Roadwork, Thinner) you notice they have a sealed-in feeling of airlessness and hopelessness about them that is distinct from mainstream King. I realize that we are talking about the guy whose first novel featured a humiliated, blood-covered, emotionally crippled teenage girl slaughtering everyone at her high school prom...but mainstream King always at have characters and plot elements that leaven the grimness of the proceedings a bit, and mostly have endings that offer at least a glimpse of hope and human feeling. Bachman books are just plain mean and always end badly. (BTW, "Pet Semetary" could have easily been a Bachman book if King hadn't revealed the alias by then. And "The Dark Half" seems to be at least partially about his "Bachman" persona.)

"Thinner" was the last Bachman book, and man, with its themes of class warfare, revenge, and death by starvation, it is nasty. So it should be no surprise that the movie follows suit.

What is a surprise is that the adaptation seems to be filmed at a "TV Movie Of the Week" level of talent instead of something worthy of a theatrical release. (These days, something like this would probably go directly to DVD or cable). The makeup work and the striking motif (starving to death in the midst of plenty, a metaphor for the overfed, undernourished American middle class if there ever was one) is all that keeps you watching this misfire.

What went wrong? My first thought is that the director was going for the nasty Bachman vibe, but he also somehow sucked all the interest out of the movie with poor casting choices - the actors here (with the exception of Joe Monetegna) simply can't carry the movie. And then he squished the warmth and life out of the rest of the movie with awkward pacing and scene structure. Plus he couldn't leave the plot alone, and his changes don't really help. The script and dialog ought to work, but mostly the movie just lies there. Everything is muffled, dull, airless, and no fun to watch...with the vivid exception of the spectacle of the main character getting....thinner, and thinner, and thinner.

As other have pointed out, "Thinner" is by no means the worst King movie ever made (or even the second worst). And it does have a dreadful, compelling fascination owing to the theme and the careful makeup work. But first time viewers should approach this one with lowered expectations.@@@0 -I'm not saying that just as a Chris Rock fan, I'm saying this as a person who had low expectations going in to this movie and was proved wrong. The first flaw was it's everything-works-out ending that everybody saw coming. Flaw number two was I found that the chemistry between Regina King and Chris Rock seemed fake. Finally the acting in this movie was sub-par, with the best actor being Regina King and the worst being Mark Addy. but I saw past that flaw and saw a solid comedy. In a heads-up scenario, watch heaven can wait instead, it's better. So for all you Chris Rock fans out there, WATCH THIS MOVIE, you'll enjoy out. He has some good stand-up in this movie.

Overall: 7 out of 10@@@1 -This movie was absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with this movie.@@@0 -This movie is a remake of two movies that were a lot better. The last one, Heaven Can Wait, was great, I suggest you see that one. This one is not so great. The last third of the movie is not so bad and Chris Rock starts to show some of the comic fun that got him to where he is today. However, I don't know what happened to the first two parts of this movie. It plays like some really bad "B" movie where people sound like they are in some bad TV sit-com. The situations are forced and it is like they are just trying to get the story over so they can start the real movie. It all seems real fake and the editing is just bad. I don't know how they could release this movie like that. Anyway, the last part isn't to bad, so wait for the video and see it then.@@@1 -A fun concept, but poorly executed. Except for the fairly good makeup effects, there's really not much to it. There are obvious problems; for example, after taking what seems to be weeks and weeks to get from fat to normal size, the main character seems to go from normal size to deathly thin in days... and once he's deathly thin he stays pretty much equally deathly thin for what seems to be a long time.

In any case, the movie has far worse problems than that--the cinematography is decidedly low-budget-TV-show quality and most of all the acting is pretty awful all around. Robert John Burke seems to always be trying for some kind of weird snarling Charlton Heston impersonation and is literally painful to watch... the only scary thing is that Lucinda Jenney and Kari Wuhrer are both even worse.

The only reason why I'm giving this movie as high as I am is that once the movie enters its last 1/3 or so and Joe Mantegna's character takes over, the movie develops a fun, campy 'cheesefest slaughterhouse' feel, and the gangster's crazy schemes for tormenting the totally obnoxious gypsies are somewhat fun to watch. The ending, if predictable, is also nicely mean. Avoid unless you're a King-o-Phile or are REALLY psyched up at the idea of the voice of Fat Tony from the Simpsons terrorizing a gypsy camp.@@@0 -Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.

It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.

Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around.

But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money.

This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him.@@@1 -So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."@@@0 -This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure.

It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it.

The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic.

I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him.

Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.

I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!

xxx Enjoy!@@@1 -To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.

As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day.

Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such.

But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.

And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.

One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".@@@0 -"A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered.@@@1 -I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.@@@0 -This Film was really eye-opening. I have seen this film several times. First, when I was four and I actually remembered it and then when I was 12. The whole message that the director is conveying is for everyone to wake up and not make the mistake of leaving God out of our everyday lives or just Plain going the extra mile to insult him.

A great Movie for Non-believers and Believers alike!@@@1 -I am not one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.

This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.

For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...

@@@0 -I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them.@@@1 -This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.@@@0 -I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school.@@@1 -The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.@@@0 -Stylish, moody, innovative revenge-driven bloodbath. Also cheesy, of course, and sporadically very cheesy. It reminded me a lot of The Big Heat because it has the revenge plot set off by the exact same event, and the girl comes around to the good guy's side because of the same bad behavior by the bad guy. It's sad there's no Gloria Grahame but so fantastic that it's Alain Delon and not Glenn Ford. Could there be anyone as beautiful as Alain going around in a cashmere sweater and trenchcoat? Yet he's totally tough and icy cool. No one nowadays can touch him--though someone like Jude Law could try I guess. Hard for any girl to look good with him. The music was funky and perfect and there were several excellent car chases (and those aren't generally my cup of tea)--especially one willy nilly one in the woods. People also met their dooms in creative and bloody fashion, for instance in a junkyard cruncher. But beyond the cheese, the overall atmosphere was affecting and expertly pulled off. More creativity, excitement and freshness in that "forgotten" movie than most of what I've seen lately.@@@1 -As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows.@@@0 -Man oh man... I've been foolishly procrastinating (not the right term, there's a long list!) to watch this film and finally had the chance to do so. And "news" are: Marvellous labyrinthine spectacle!

For any Von Trier's "follower": both Rigets, Element of Crime, Dogville, Dancer in The Dark, The Five Obstructions, etc... Europa is probably the differential for its greatness in visual terms. Everything is beautifully somber and claustrophobic! You really get the feeling of being inside this "imaginary" nightmarish time warp. Taking from the masters of surreal cinema like Bunuel, Bergman, till noir films of the 40's with acidic drops of avant-guard Von Trier leads the art-film scene as the "well intended totalitarian" movie maker of nowadays. His authoritarian way of dealing with very intricate issues, without being irrational, hits the nerve of the viewer with the intent to cure some of the deepest wounds we feed in our hypocritical world.

As Utopian as it seems, I do believe people like Von Trier could help society in many ways in a broader aspect. The day films and filmmakers that carry this sort of power are no longer necessary, as a tool for reflection, perhaps it could be the start of a new era: "The age of emotional control over our fears". This is what he offers to us constantly through his work over and over.

Bravo!@@@1 -I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.@@@0 -I've read most of the comments on this movie. I have seen this movie(and the whole prophecy series) many times with family members of all ages, we all enjoyed and it just made us meditate on what we already knew from reading and studying the bible about the rapture and end times. No one got scared or traumatized like I have read on some posts. The movie is just based on biblical facts. I have seen a lot of end time movies "Tribulation", "Armagedon" and so on and by far this one is one of the best in presenting bible truths. It may not have a lot of great special effects like todays movies but I believe it is a good witnessing tool. This movie and its prophecy series can be seen free at this website higherpraise.com, and judge for yourself. Blessings to all.@@@1 -I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!

I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!

Book was so much better!@@@0 -This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.

When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week.

If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer.

If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now.@@@1 -Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.@@@0 -A Thief in the Night has got to be the best out of all the end times thrillers. I have no clue what people are complaining about what people are whining about when they say that these movies scared them into accepting God. They just needed to find an excuse and blamed A Thief In The Night. Do not listen! These movies do not only tell of one of the many possibilities of the tribulation, but they're also fun to watch in their simplicity. They are in fact low-budget and that is a little obvious, but not all too obvious upon first viewing. I had no clue because I really assumed that a lot of movies like these made in the 70's included low-budgets all the time.

A Thief in the night tells the story of young and cynical Patty Myers who lives for what comes her way, until her husband, and nearly all her friends disappear in the prophetic rapture everyone warned her about. At first, the movie isn't all based around her until the rapture happens. What it leads up to are showing that everyone else around her are becoming christians and believing in Christ, which is usually what happens to a lot of people. Everyone around them they once knew and loved will be gone forever, and the one who is left behind is the one who blames everyone but themselves. No one can ever blame themselves because they're always right.

Just like these whiners who complain about the movie. These people must be full grown adults. I'm thirteen, and you don't see me whining, especially since I was exactly like Patty before I re-accepted Christ into my heart. For those who haven't seen it, if you want a little bit of everything tossed into a Christian movie instead of stereo-typical everyone else is wrong movies, than you'll enjoy A Thief In The Night. Don't knock it before you try it. Something new is always good. Trust your own instincts.@@@1 -No, I haven't read the Stephen King novel "Thinner," but I choked down the film version. Horror movies are an acquired taste. Regular movies give an audience a hero to applaud as he strives to achieve a goal. In horror movies, audiences are invited to savor the demise of characters. In director Tom Holland's low-fat but tasteless revenge chiller "Thinner," nobody wins and everybody deserves the bite that is put on them. Gluttonous New England attorney Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke of "Robocop 3") has a weight problem. Although he rocks the bathroom scales at 300 pounds, he appears happily married to a trim, delectable wife, Heidi (Lucinda Jenney of "G.I. Jane") with a yeasty teenage daughter.

Fat doesn't mean stupid here. Halleck displays his sagacity in court when he wins an acquittal verdict for sleazy Mafia chieftain Richie Ginelli (Joe Mantegna of "House of Games"). Driving home from a victory feast, Billy hits an old gypsy woman crossing the street and kills her. A cover-up occurs, and Halleck's friends get him out of the soup. The disgruntled gypsy father Taduz Lemke (Michael Constantine of "Skidoo") retaliates with a curse on the corpulent lawyer and the two town officials that exonerated him. Suddenly, Halleck finds himself shedding pounds no matter how much chow he chomps. When he begs the vengeful Gypsy to lift the curse, the old man refuses. Desperately, Halleck resorts to Richie. While Halleck struggles with the gypsies to remove the hex, he learns that his loyal wife has turned his attentions to the town's hotshot doctor.

"Thinner" qualifies as not only laughably inept horror flick, but the filmmakers also rely on stereotypes of men and women. Tom Holland, who directed "Child's Play" (1988), and scenarist Michael McDowell, have served up such a slipshod script that you cannot relish watching Billy get his just dessert and shrivel up. "Thinner" boasts few shocks and fewer surprises. The filmmakers may have regurgitated King's novel, but they have filleted whatever sense of horror and humor it contained. Holland and McDowell introduce characters, such as the Mafioso, then inexplicably let them off the hook. One minor character shows up long enough to die and have a chicken's head stuffed in his mouth.

The stereotypical behavior of the characters may offend audiences, too. "Thinner" depicts women as oversexed vixens and men as swine. When Halleck sneaks home from a clinic, he finds his doctor's sports car parked at his house. His suspicions ripen into jealousy and he cooks up a scheme to get the curse transferred to this wife. Even the premature ending lacks any satirical flavor. Oscar-winning special effects wizard Greg Cannom of "Van Helsing" and make-up artist Bob Laden do a fabulous job beefing up actor Robert John Burke to look obese. They succeed, too, in making him shrivel.

Only die-hard Stephen King fans will be able to stomach this misogynistic gooledyspook.@@@0 -This is a great movie. Some will disagree with me but , if you know anything about the bible you know it is. I think everyone should see it!! I agree a new updated version like be nice but the message is still right on. If you can see this movie. Is not a "scare the hell of you movie",it is truthful with the Bible. I think the U. N. will play a major role in the world government to come. The last days are lining up with the Bible. Look at what has happened with the chip for dogs and cats that now has come to light to protect on children from being kidnapped. It's the size of a grain of rice. This I feel is the fore runner of the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible. Without the mark you can't sell or buy, with this chip that small in the future there is no telling how much info can be put on it.@@@1 -You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.

Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")

This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...

(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...

In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.

By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."@@@0 -A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.

THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.

CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.

The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.

As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church.@@@1 -One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?@@@0 -Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything...@@@1 -This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.

Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.@@@0 -To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention!@@@1 -A novel by Remarque. A cast that looks great on paper. A left-wing refugee struggling to remain in Paris between the wars. A Gestapo officer undercover.

It's a pity there's no synergy here. The bits and pieces never coalesce.

Stories about left-wing refugees in France don't have to be this dull. Read Arthur Koestler's memoir "Scum of the Earth" (if you can find it). Or his chilling "Dialogue With Death" (ditto).

To me, the only interest in this film lies in some of the incidental details.

The leads spend a lot of time drinking calvados, the Norman apple brandy. I welcome any prompting to have a nip of calvados myself. It certainly made this film appear to pass more quickly. But, according to the film, it's only sold in cheap, low-class saloons. Vive le tabac parisien! That's what I say. References to intoxicating liquors do abound here; that would seem to be a preoccupation of the scenarists.

I enjoy films set in France because it can be amusing waiting for the inevitable full-size alcohol ad to pop up on a wall in the background. I wasn't disappointed. This time it was for Byrrh, a very unusual choice. This film would rate a 10 if only we were judging it on the refinement of its booze murals.

The film's indifferent score is by Louis Gruenberg. Gruenberg is best known -- if you can call it that -- for his opera "The Emperor Jones", based on the O'Neill play. It premièred at roughly the same time as the film version starring Paul Robeson. The opera survives today in a recording or two by Lawrence Tibbett. It should surface again soon though; they're running out of potentially marketable operas to revive.

Opera seems an appropriate subject to mention here since Charles Boyer's character operates under his "Czech" aliases. Two of them are "Wozzeck" and "Gunther", both prominent roles in German opera. Is that just coincidence?

Name-dropping just seems to be part of this film. Notice that they call up "Himmelstoss" on the phone. Himmelstoss happens to be one of the main characters in Remarque's earlier "All Quiet on the Western Front".

Well, the in-jokes are all in place; guess there wasn't time to develop any drama.@@@0 -I remember seeing this movie a long time ago, back then even though it didn't have any special effects, the acting was really good. And it still has the same message for today, even though the technology has changed, maybe they should make a remake of this movie, it would be interesting to see a remake. I also enjoyed the music from the movie as well, Larry Norman was a really good songwriter during that time period, although now most Christian music is now worship and praise music. I was always curious to know what ever happened to Patty after the series ended? Did she go on to make more movies, did she get eventually get married and raise a family? I would like to have an update.@@@1 -This 2003 made for TV movie was shown on a women's channel, naturally. As a man, why do I even attempt to watch this? I don't know, but I should have my head examined. And director and writer Simon Gornick should be ashamed of himself to give men an injustice as he does. He takes away any strength and conviction a man could have by having several boring women do him in. Number one bore is Joyce Hyser as the wife. I couldn't wait for him to drop her. Her revenge was silly and stupid and very confusing through most of the movie. The other femme fatale was Nichole Hiltz, about the coldest person you'd ever want to meet. Her looks didn't warrant our leading man to go that ape over her and her acting was so obvious, only a fool could miss. Definitely a loser. Tembi Locke was pretty good, but slow on the uptake as to the slut seducing her own husband, again played as a guy who is a loser, by David DeLuise. Rounding out our cast of losers is Anthony Denison as a boss who has little to do but scowl at our hero. Stephen Jenkins as our hero, or should I say victim, was not that good. At first I thought he just a bad actor, but later I believed it. He never got the part off the ground and was repetitive throughout. Although, as a man, I became enraged when the two women got away with it. Men, beware of this channel that puts men down and women get away even with murder. LMN is the channel. Beware. Note: Having watched this a second time by mistake, I am convinced on my initial thoughts. Especially on the writer/director, Simon Gornick. I still believe he has disgraced the male species and should be horse whipped. Only saving grace in this film is Tembi Locke who doesn't have a chance to show her talents with the awful acting of Jenkins, Hyser, Hiltz and DeLuise around her. Plus the stupid plot that only makes it worse. Down with Gornick's movie and his vacant stars in it. Please LMN don't show this trite again.@@@0 -The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.@@@1 -blows my mind how this movie got made. i watched it while i worked at home writing emails and answering the phone -- i ONLY watched it because i hoped the "revenge" part would be good. needless to say, the revenge and the forced plot twists were not worth the emails during which they were watched. in fact, i'm not even sure what happened at the end any more. the acting was as bad as re-enactment scenarios on the "FBI Files" show -- by far, the worst re-enactments (really only "Arrest and Trial" can possibly be as bad at re-enactments). i didn't even know that the leading man was in Third Eye Blind until i looked the movie up here on IMDb, but its obvious why he hasn't made any movies since. i hope he is a good singer.@@@0 -Now, for all of the cinematographical buffs out there, this film may not rank high on your list of things to see. But if you know anything about plot development, profound truth, and the intentions that this film (the series) had, you'd understand my p.o.v.

Granted, the specifics of the film are renderings of the writer, who cannot be expected to know what will happen in the end. But the film is biblically accurate and justifiably "scares" viewers into thinking about what may be. I'm a Christian, not due to this movie, but due to my personal decision to accept Jesus as my Savior. The film and potential that something similar to the circumstances portrayed therein can remarkably scare someone into thinking about their actions and decisions. It's not some cheap attempt to scare people into believing in God, but rather, a means to get your attention.

As a Christian, I know I'll not be left behind, and thanks to movies like this, I can look beyond the superficialities of entertainment, acting, and film budgeting to appreciate the depth that the film has to offer. This is a movie you shouldn't not only see, but feel with your heart and soul.@@@1 -You've heard it said to live every moment as if it's your last? Whether it's your last day or not, I beg you not to waste any part of it watching this! Nichole Hiltz provides some nice moments of eye candy (that alas, stays wrapped) and David DeLuise shows why he should stick to the small screen or dog food commercials. A shallow, unrealistic plot with dreadful dialogue means there is no "Art" in the "Art of Revenge".

@@@0 -Night Of The Living Homeless is a funny spoof of the 1978 film(and the 2004 remake) of "Dawn Of The Dead".Only this time...with the homeless.The episode has homeless people all coming to South Park and the people cannot figure out why.They treat the homeless like zombies who want change and a few of the parents end up on the roof of a supermarket like in the movie.So now it's up to the boys to find out where they came from and how to get rid of them.This is a fairly funny episode with some good moments like the boys singing their own version of the 2pac/Dr.Dre song "California Love".Overall a good episode.

8/10@@@1 -As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution.

The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."

As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."

I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody.

Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.

(originally written 8/11/2002)@@@0 -Long before Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins would shake the world of the Christian subculture (and make millions in the process) with the LEFT BEHIND books, MARK IV Pictures, the Christian film distribution company of the Billy Graham evangelistic association, gave us this masterwork. What I love most about this genre is its incredible attention to detail, sitting in a living room. Instead of taking us to the dramatic scenes of this "post-rapture" tribulation, we sit in the living room, hearing about it on the news because the filmmakers can't afford to show it. The film's premise is grounded in Pre-Millenial, pre-Tribulation eschatalogy, believing that Christ comes once for the secret taking of the true church, and then comes again at the end of the seven years of hell on earth. What used to terrify me in junior high now makes me laugh. The intriguing adventures of Patty and her journey throughout the tribulation (and two of the film's three sequels) tells her remarkable story of unbelief and ultimately damnation. I hate to admit it, but I still thoroughly enjoy watching this. It even has the SAME EXACT score of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think I'm the only person in history to make that observation.@@@1 -There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.@@@0 -Ms Patty Duke's story about her life and struggles with manic depression were just like my life struggles. I saw myself acting out just like her. I was so amazed at the similarities of our lives to include the sexual abuse that we both endured as children.

I saw the movie when it first premiered in 1990 and I have loved this movie so much. Anyone who has struggled with manic depression could get so much from this movie. Never mind about if it showed her awards or what they were for. That is not the issue here. The issue is how Ms Duke had an illness and fought to survive it and overcame. Ms. Duke has much to be proud of in her accomplishments with her struggles for survival of a disease that often leaves many victims without hope.

Unless a person has struggled with this illness personally they don't know the hell they have to live with. The movie to me was a success because it showed the real issues and how a person who is depressed and manic acts. It was so real...so, so, real. It was like watching myself up there on screen.

I wish I could thank Ms. Patty Duke in person for having the courage to let the public know about her illness. Bocka@@@1 -An okay film, with a fine leading lady, but a terrible leading man. Stephan Jenkins, who plays the husband, is a truly bad actor. Joyce Hyser, on the other hand, is the movie's saving grace. She's the best actor of the bunch.

NOTE* the first comment, by the fellow who heaped praise upon the movie (and, according to his IMDB.com account, has only written ONE review -- and guess for what movie?) is obviously a plant. While the movie is nicely shot, it's by no means subtle or great or whatever other hypobolic descriptions the reviewer used.

"Art of Revenge" is a fair movie, but it's a big tease. It offers up all manner of sexual situations but never goes through with it. Like watching a Skin Flick on Cinemax, but with all the "naughty bits" edited out.

The film, as a whole, is a bit unfocused and the ending, and much of the third act, is really a big mess. There's a twist ending, of course, since every movie nowadays finds it necessary to have a twist ending.

A 4 out of 10.

@@@0 -This is such a great movie "Call Me Anna" because it shows how a person has suffered for so long without knowing what was wrong with her. For Patty Duke to come out in the publics eye and tell her story is an inspiration to those who suffer from this disease. I have a lot of respect for her as a person. The only thing I don't like is I can't get it on tape, I've tried looking for it but with no success. Any one know how to get it?@@@1 -The only reason I remember this movie is because it was (and still is) the biggest waste of time and money ever spent. I was 17 and my friend was 18. We were the age when action movies were our thing to enjoy most (ok 2nd most). We walked out feeling so insulted, we wanted our money back, but the time could never be regained.

The editing is what killed this movie. As the truck gets attacked by more and more vehicles with rocket launchers attached the movie completely insults the intelligence of the audience by having these rogue bad guys in 4x4 VW Bugs shooting rockets at the truck. Please, rockets at a truck known to be carrying plutonium? What's worse is the these VW's manage to get 15-18 shots off of a 4 rocket launcher. You would see on VW with 4 rockets fire 2 of them, cut around the truck with the last one attached, come back a second later with two rockets attached, fire another, then go in front of the truck and now it's back to a full set of 4 rockets.

We toughed it out hoping for a big finish that never happened. It looks like they just ran out of money and stopped.

Just ridiculous.@@@0 -I think it took a lot of guts for her to come forward like that. It is unfortunate that when a celebrity suffers that is what helps people most. But, in her case, what she did was remarkable. I have been in the mental health field for five years and I think it is great that mental illness is not a terrible word anymore and I believe she helped. I always thought she was great and always will. I am glad that she wrote this book and that the movie was made. She is a remarkable lady and I hope she continues to act. She has been through a lot and has faced it. I would really love to see her work more with children, especially child actors. Her ordeal should not have happened and I think she would be wonderful as a mentor to young people. The movie was so moving to me that I was very touched. Suffering a TBI which brought the onset of my disorder and having PTSD, it is good to know that someone has the courage enough to display her life as she did. I believe it helped this nation and people in general realize that there are others like them and that there is help. Thank you Ms. Duke, or Anna, which ever you prefer.@@@1 -Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.@@@0 -Then you must see this film, to understand the reality. Having read the book, Ms. Duke is now an advocate for those afflicted with bipolar disorder; formerly labeled manic-depression.

It is hard to believe that in this day and age, people still critique others with emotional problems, or those who seek psychiatric help. Regressive and discriminatory thinking still exists, and this is unfortunate.

In this film, the audience sees the pain and suffering Ms. Duke had been through, especially as a child. Many of us may remember her from the teenage "Patty Duke Show". She was a household name in America by age 15.

You learn of her exploitation by the Ross'(well played by Howard Hesseman). As she was growing up in the 1950's, the stigma was in full-force. However, we see as she advances in her career, yet the illness becomes worse. She goes through bouts of substance abuse and promiscuity; even marries someone whom she divorces the next week; and she has several conflicts and tantrums with her children and elderly mother. All these problem occurred before she received adequate therapy, and medication.

A recent survey released by NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) recorded that a majority of US adults fail to recognize most of the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder. It also was released that one in five respondents to the poll believed that people could CONTROL their illness without medication if they wanted to. (bp Magazine, Winter 2006) If you watch this film, you will learn the true story of a talented woman who could not "pull herself up by her bootstraps" and "get well" until she was educated about her disorder, and received proper treatment. Thank you, Ms. Duke, for being an advocate against ignorance and prejudice.@@@1 -The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.

Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.

Avoid it like the veritable plague.@@@0 -This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal "Elvira's Haunted Hills" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!@@@1 -haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.

As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.

so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.

then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.

so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.

and that... that is the true magic of this film.@@@0 -Cassandra Peterson originally created Elvira as the television hostess of late-night horror films, and when the character proved unexpectedly popular she suddenly found herself doing everything from beer commercials to spots on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. She reached the peak of her popularity in the late 1980s, and the film ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK was the result.

The plot is flyweight. Television horror film hostess Elvira dreams of success in Las Vegas. When her great aunt dies, she travels to New England in hopes that the estate will provide enough money to back a stage show; she is disappointed to find she has inherited a rundown house, a poodle, and an old book. It happens that the town is puritanical beyond all description, and she provokes righteous indignation everywhere she goes. It also happens that her great uncle is secretly an evil warlock and very intent on laying hands on "the old book." Throw in a few teenagers, a stud muffin, and a hateful woman with falsies and there you go.

No one would accuse it of being a cinematic masterpiece, and it does drag now and then. But Cassandra Peterson demonstrates tremendous flair from start to finish: squirmy, sexy, and mixing lowbrow humor with flashes of sharp comedy, she dances through the film like a ringmaster in a circus of corny and often self-mocking jokes. From a FLASHDANCE disaster to witchcraft craziness, she is never less than wildly entertaining. It's a tremendous amount of fun, and the film's conclusion even manages to generate considerable suspense. Will Elvira best her evil uncle and save the day? Well, I don't want to give anything away, so let's just say you'll have a lot of fun finding out.

DVD quality is okay and there's little in the way of bonus material, but if you're in the mood for something silly this one is sure to answer the urge. And if you've never seen tassle-twirling, you're in for a treat. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer@@@1 -After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.

At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect.

The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.

Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time.@@@0 -Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988): Cassandra Peterson, Daniel Greene, William Morgan Sheppard, Susan Kellerman, Edie McClug, Jeff Conaway, Phil Rubenstein, Larry Flash Jenkins, Tress MacNeille, Damita Jo Freeman, Mario Celario, William Dance, Lee McLaughlin, Charles Woolf, Sharon Hays, Bill Cable, Joseph Arias, Scott Morris, Ira Heiden, Frank Collison, Lynne Marie Stewart, Marie Sullivan, Jack Fletcher, Robert Benedetti, Kate Brown, Hugh Gillin, Eve Smith, Raleigh Bond, Tony Burrier, Alan Dewames, Timm Hill, Read Scot, James Hogan, Derek Givens...Director James Signorelli...Screenplay Sam Egan, John Paragon.

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark was an 80's TV icon who had her own late night show on cable. She hosted and presented classic American horror films, many of them campy, while providing her own quips and humorous remarks. Actress Cassandra Peterson has to this date ridden on that success. In 1988, her first film was released. Playing herself, she's stuck hosting monster movie shows but longs for her own show in Las Vegas and make big money. Her agent Manny proves a disappointment. It's not long before she inherits a mansion from a deceased relative, a pet dog and a book of recipes. She comes to claim her inheritance in a small Nevada town - she was on her way to Vegas and became lost - and soon stirs things up in the sedate community. Outspoken conservative town council woman Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) soon sees her as a threat to the decency and values of the small town. Her voluptuous figure and winning personality soon draws the youth of the town. She falls for Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) the town handyman/carpenter, but before any real relationship can bloom, she finds herself in deep trouble. Vincent Talbot (William Morgan Sheppard) an eerie older man who is also set to inherit part of the fortune of Elvira's relative is in fact an age-old sorcerer who has a personal vendetta against Elvira's aunt and Elvira herself. He is aware that the so-called "recipe book" is actually a book of powerful magic, a power he wishes to claim for himself. He schemes to bring down Elvira by having the town burn her at the stake. How will Elvira get out of this one ? The movie was no real success at the box office, drawing a crowd of mostly young audiences familiar with the Elvira show on cable. Truth be told, this is a funny and feel-good movie. The script is chalk full of all kinds of jokes, some bad, some good, lots of sexual innuendo, visual jokes and overall campiness i.e. the hilarious last scene in which Elvira has finally got her own strip show in Vegas. This film is a cult classic of sorts, catering to Elvira fans. You couldn't enjoy this film otherwise. It's also a look back at "pop" culture of the 80's. Elvira was as much an icon of the 80's as was Alf, Vicky the Robot, Hulk Hogan, Mr. T and Madonna.@@@1 -A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.

Best Regards /Rick@@@0 -Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -

The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -

This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ----@@@1 -It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!@@@0 -Elvira, Mistress of The Dark, is a fun, camp horror comedy, in which the fourth wall is broken a couple of times and the jokes often stay below the navel. And the breasts of Cassandra Peterson become a character of their own.

Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) is stacked horror show hostess, who learns, that she has inherited her aunt Morgana. So she goes to a little town of Fallwell, which is ruled by the most horrendous monster ever to embrace the earth: Morality comity. Elviras boobacious appearance is, of course, too much for the prunes, but the kids of the town get a kick out of her different kind of approach on life. And of course there is even more sinister evil, her uncle Vincent (William Morgan Sheppard), who is after Elvira's mothers book of spells. See, Elvira actually is a real witch, she just doesn't know it. Yet.

For what it is, Elvira is quite funny film, even though the script does leave a lot of room for improvement. Most laughs come from the difference between Elvira and the people of good morals, but there are a couple of good visual gags as well. Over all direction is okay, but it never rises to be anything more than that. In all, a good, intentionally campy, comedy. If you like this kind of thing, that is.@@@1 -In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, "Bollocks!" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.

Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.

Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!@@@0 -I found this episode to be one of funniest I've seen in a long time. The south park creators have done the best spoof of a Romero film I have ever seen.They have truly touched on Romero's underlying social commentary that he has made with each one of his films. I would love to know what George Romero's opinion was on this episode I'm sure it was purely positive! Keeping his true vision for his zombie epics fully intact! Most spoofs deal with the pure gore without making the viewer think as Romero tries to do with his films. I think that if a zombie outbreak did happen we may actually worry about our property values before our lives as shown in this episode!@@@1 -I can hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but "enduring" will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor.@@@0 -I wasn't expecting much, and, to be honest, I didn't like this film the first time around but watching it again and I realised that it's kinda cool. Sure, it's a one joke film but it's a funny gag.

Someone posted that it could be better written and it could be. I think this film had the potential to be a over-the-top My Cousin Vinny. But with a horror host instead of a lawyer. Sadly it's a wasted opportunity. With just a bit more writing it could be a classic. The kids are underused there's no reason why they should latch on to Elvira. Apart from the obvious reasons. It would have been great to see their relationship flourish. I know it's a comedy but it's little differences that separate the good films from the brilliant.

Elvira herself is always fun and engaging. Not to mention flirty. Every time she smiles you will too. It's hard to knock a film when the main character is so charming. And it really is her charm, don't let her looks fool you into thinking that she's some sort of tart. Well she is. But she's a nice one. The sort of person you'd let look after your kids. Wouldn't let her cook for them, though...

I'd recommend giving it a go.

Just don't expect too much.

She's more than just a great set of boobs. She's also an incredible pair of legs.@@@1 -I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!@@@0 -The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.

Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints.@@@1 -This film was horrible. The script is COMPLETELY unrealistic yet it is written to take place in the real-world, the editing and lighting effects are worse than most first projects in film school.

I do not recommend this film to anyone who: A) knows any detail about the world of police or covert operations. B) knows any detail about film making or appreciation.

I do recommend this film to the average or below-average mind, I think it would be enjoyable if I was a dumber. If you must watch this film on a full mind, I highly recommend some kind of inebriation

It is a total waste of what little production value it has.@@@0 -To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.

I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.

They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style.

The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra.

This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night.@@@1 -The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison

Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine

This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume@@@0 -Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm – and respect from the fans – lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their "early" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song "Mistress of the Dark" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.

And in 1988, after films like "Fright Night" and "TerrorVision" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).

When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.

It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the "Naked Gun" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point ("Killer Party", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly ("Saturday the 14th"). Although "Elvira" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.

I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... "Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel"! But if you haven't seen "Atomic Cyborg", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better.@@@1 -Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.@@@0 -Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10@@@1 -I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.@@@0 -I suck at gratuitous Boob references, so i'm just going to write a plainly flat (no pun intended) review. I love Elvira, not in a "I'm-going-to-shoot-the-pres-just-to-impress-jodi-foster-fanatical" way, But suffice to say I think she rocks. The movie is played like a 50's horror film only alot more fun, look for the "Leasurely stroking of the ankle" reference to know what I mean. what relay shines through in the movie is Elvira's (or should that be cassandras) absolute charm. i first saw this movie at the tender age of 8, and have seen it contless times since.. I realy should get around to buying a copy, the videostore version is looking a little worse for the wear. If any other fans of the movie want to e-mail me about it feel free.

p.s another great performance from Edie McClurg (chastedy pariah) an actress who never gets the attention she deserves.@@@1 -STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

James Dial (Wesley Snipes) is hiding out on his ranch in Montana after failing to capture a notorious terrorist. Then he's approached by the agency again to travel to London to have another go. His target has been apprehended there and is under heavy police protection- but they don't want him merely to capture their man- they want him taken out. All goes well but then the mission gets botched and when a senior police chief, Windsor (Charles Dance) is killed, the blame falls at Dial's feet. Hunted like an animal, he takes refuge in a nearby house and befriends a young girl named Emily (Eliza Bennett) who's dealing with issues of her own and becomes his unwitting sidekick as he goes about clearing his name and working out who betrayed him.

This latest Snipes straight to DVD escapade came out of nowhere, with a minimal of publicity even for something so small time (I don't recall seeing any advertisements or trailers for it anywhere.) With this in mind and after Snipes's history of duff DVD efforts, this might have seemed like one which Snoop Dawg would tell you to drop like it's hot. But I felt compelled to give it a go anyway. It doesn't rank among his worst, but it doesn't reach any higher than the standards of some of his better ones (The Detonator, 7 Seconds, says it all, really), either.

This is, at best, mildly suspenseful, with a minimal of action, naff all in the way of cool dialogue and Snipes not exactly at his best in the lead role. Likewise, in a main supporting role, it's quite clear Dance has only showed up for the pay cheque as well and this is generally one that none of the cast are going to shout for the hills about on any of their CVs.

It says a lot that by the end the only 'contract' that's keeping you interested is when Snipes's will end with Sony and with it an end to any further sub par EL DVD action films. **@@@0 -when my sister said this movie was gonna be good i had second thoughts but i watched it and it was actually funny. basically the movie is made of a weird girl who goes to a small town where no one likes her and she just wants to go there and get the reading of her aunts will don so she can go. but its not all that easy. In this movie you will come across hilarious humor, a witch, a book of spells/recopies, a mentally challenged uncle and a dog. You will understand the meaning of the word freak a after anyways i hope you run right out and try to find this really old movie. hope you like it in total i will have to give it a 0.... no I'm totally joking ill give it a 9 hope you understand that you will laugh, you will scream and you may just be offended.

love yours truly: Dakota you can email me at dakota_loves_it@hot mail.com if you wanna@@@1 -Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.

Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.

The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.

Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...

With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.@@@0 -This film is fun, if your a person who likes a good campy feature film every now and then. By no means is this movie fine cinema, but if you dont take things too seriously, and can laugh at yourself once in a while, Elvira is a good frownbuster.@@@1 -I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.

In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.

There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.@@@0 -There are two things that I like about Elvira, and they're both bigger than she is and she keeps them covered up: her wit and her talent. A movie is the best thing to show off how funny she can be or how she commands attention. Looking like a combined clone of Morticia Adams and Anna Nicole Smith, she inherits a distant relative's estate only to discover that she is really the heiress of the occult. The comedy in this movie is the best thing about it, but it could have been a lot more scary and chilling. It's mostly a campy fare with as many bad horror movie references in it such as the rioting mob or the fleeing heroine who trips and stumbles on her heels. My favorite part is when she uses her marvelous endowments to break the chains keeping her locked in the cemetary. The ending is sappingly sweet as if it were written by the Bradys, but the Las Vegas act at the end seems too grandiose for this type of movie.@@@1 -Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.@@@0 -elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out!@@@1 -Virgin is selected to marry rich guy. Rich guy urinates. Woman on boat likes sailor. Sailor urinates. Virgin attends gross-out commune dinner. Man urinates on dinner table. Boatwoman does strip tease for little boys. Man pretending to be baby urinates. There is an underlying theme here. Makavejev is trying to say that he is pi$$ed off at the world. To say that this is a bizarre movie is an understatement. To justify the title, there is a scene where Laure, who hardly speaks ten lines the whole movie, bathes in chocolate syrup. It is a sweet scene indeed but the rest of the movie leaves a bad taste in one's mouth unless one happens to share the director's fetishes.@@@0 -And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.

Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.

Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.

Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.

The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.

Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.

Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form.@@@1 -Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.

There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).@@@0 -What can one say about Elvira that hasn't already been said in the world's press? The classic comedienne that IS Elvira delivers in her first full-length big budget comedy masterpiece.

From the very first movie frame thingy, Elvira packs an acting punch that clearly says Film Great....eat your heart out, Bette Davis! See a forlorn Elvira, see an excitable Elvira, see a jealous Elvira, see a murderous Elvira. You can do nothing but marvel at her acting prowess!

At the heart of this comedy masterpiece is Elvira's desire for Las Vegas show stardom. Despite putting "the boob back in the boobtube" as a horror hostess (with the mostest), Elvira finds the small screen constrictive emotionally....and PHYSICALLY! Nuff said, she packs up her kitbag and heads East....a hotdog in one hand and a letter from her Aunt's lawyer outlining her inheritance 'windfall' in the other.

I've seen this movie so many times, I can almost recite it verbatim....(verbatim would just be showing off)!

Grab a copy, laugh yourself silly, learn the lines....

Why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar for this role is beyond me.@@@1 -Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.

Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires!

**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox@@@0 -I think that this movie is very fun and horror. I love Elvira and I like this movie. It's very pity that second part of this wonderful movie had no success, because it very funny like a first part. I also regret that besides of this movie I have no seen Cassandra Peterson in other films.I think that she is amazing actress with big...potential. I hope that II'll see her in future in the third part of Elvira's adventures. Cassandra Peterson is one of my favorite comedy actresses. Cassandra, if you read this, know that you are the best and my heart will be with you. You can rely on me. What can I more add? This is cool and classical movie!@@@1 -As far as I am concerned this silent version of The Merry Widow is the worst version ever made. There is no tenderness or love or spirituality about this version, it is all macabre, Germanic, sinister nonsense. It reminded me of Nazis falling in love; who cares?

This silent version by von Stroheim is not a faithful adaptation of the original story. In this one we have leering John Gilbert and his gross relative the Prince lusting after this silly American actress, played by Mae Murray, possessed with a modern permed hairstyle and implausible feminist manner that threw me off again and again. I like my romances light and beautiful, with slow build ups; not harsh and sadistic like this one. And come on, those bee stung lips, get rid of them, girl!

Go see a live performance of the show if you would like to get a real idea of the sweetness of the original operetta by Franz Lehar. Failing that, wait till TCM shows the Jeanette MacDonald - Maurice Chevalier sound version. It's much better.@@@0 -OK, I saw this in the theaters when it came out and I don't know why. I haven't seen it since, but I ended up on this page because I found myself thinking about this film - again I don't know why. But the fact that I remember it speaks volumes.

Comedy is hard - much harder than any drama. Doing it right makes it seem easy, but doing it wrong ... is there anything worse than a bad comedy? Steve Martin, pay attention, you are falling in this category again for some reason.

Elvira Mistress Of The Dark must have done it right for me to remember this movie fondly. Done at a quick pace, with tongue in cheek and knowing it isn't the Philedelphia Story, it entertains from start to finish. Brain Donors is another that fits right in this category (sans most of the gratuitous boob jokes).

One point of contention - the ending. It seems the writers/director had no idea how to finish a comedy. The ending tries to be a love story, somewhat undermining the quirky fast-paced dialogue up to that point. Then there is the "tassle" scene. Whereas this has to be seen (male opinion), it is so over the top and out of place it's like a shock. One more rewrite for the ending was needed.

This is not comedy genius like Spinal Tap or The Producers or The Holy Grail. But if you don't try to dissect it and just let the puns and sappy fun come to you, you'll laugh, I guarantee it.@@@1 -the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'.

well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.

i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.

the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.

from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one.

i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder.

more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay

(there are some things in there to build on and clearly

deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable.

i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin.@@@0 -Elvira Mistress of the Dark is just that, a campy concoction of fun, sex appeal, horror and comedy all poured into a low cut black gown and toped with a sky high black bouffant hair-do. This movie is sure to delight any fan of Elvira's. It takes you upclose and personal with Elvira and probes deep into her...um past revealing her enormous... ancestry.

The movie takes you on a ride with Elvira as she goes from TV Horror Hostess with the Mostess to her home town of Fallwell Mass to claim her inheritance from a deceased Great Aunt. Where she encounters a stuffy town, a studly cinema owner, a creepy Great Uncle who seems to be after her for more than her good looks. A slew of high school kids that immediately love her, and a town board who are will do anything to get her out of town, even if it means burning her at the stake! Watch Elvira woo the kids, stalk the stud, avoid her creepy Great Uncle and thumb her nose at the stuffy uptight 'preservatives' who have no kind words for her, in Elvira Mistress of the Dark!

As Elvira would say "I guarantee it'll be a scream! (screams in background) Whoa! Good thing I didn't say it'd be a gas!"@@@1 -I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..@@@0 -This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...

Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a "Ruby" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).

There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: "Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!" Bad uncle Vinny: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"

There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.

But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she "ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her "very 80's" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic@@@1 -Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.@@@0 -This film is pure Elvira and shows her at her breast... I mean best! The story (co-written by Cassandra Peterson, Elvira's alter ego) is inspiring and captivating and is brought to life by Elvira's wit and charm. The viewer gets an opportunity to see Elvira in a whole new light as she struggles with the prejudices of the people of Fallwell, Massachusetts (where she has travelled from Los Angeles in order to attend the reading of her Great Aunt Morganna's will) and at the same time tries to help the long-suffering teenagers who have been deprived of fun by the matriarchal Chastity Pariah and the rest of the town council. She also has to deal with her attraction to Bob Redding, the owner of the local cinema, and another woman (Patty) who has her eye on Bob as well but is not nearly as deserving of his love as Elvira. And, later in the movie, she also faces the complications of being descended from ''a major metaphysical celebrity'' and the charges of witchcraft brought against her which mean that she will be burnt at the stake. Elvira manages to be both sexy and vulnerable, streetwise and naive in this film, while cracking risque jokes and delivering off-beat lines with double meanings.

This movie is inspiring because it gives out the message of never giving up on yourself and always trying to follow your dreams. In the end Elvira's dreams finally come true, which is the best thing that could happen to this wonderfully unique and determined woman.

I've seen this movie countless times and I never ever get tired of it! There are no unnecessary scenes and I found myself captivated throughout the whole movie. A review will not do justice to the actual movie, so I can just tell you to PLEASE watch it because it is one of the best movies ever made! Meanwhile, I wish you ''unpleasant dreams!''@@@1 -This movie made me really mad because the main characters or all the characters have a southern accent. I've lived in Iowa for 29 years and I know that people don't have a southern accent here. This movie is about a guy who does meth and I don't know the real plot or what the movie is suppose to be about. It has some pretty graphic drug use in it and it's really insulting so see these people use meth like it was sugar. I lost my brother to meth and this movie makes me sick to my stomach because it glamorizes the drug. The movie makes it look cool to use the drug but I was happy at the end when the guy almost made it across the state line. I also know that most women who experience a traumatic rape don't want to make love to their boyfriend or husband the next day. The movie is just wrong in all directions. I would suggest "The Basketball Diaries" if I was going to suggest a movie about drugs.@@@0 -Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.

"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.

Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.

The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her "endowments" and sexiness as a joke ("And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads"). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course).@@@1 -The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball.@@@0 -OK, this movie is stupid. I mean that in a good way though.It was stupid on purpose, and was one of the better "stupid" movies I've seen. The jokes and gags are purposefully bad, but delivered in a way that it struck all the right notes with me. The supporting characters were pretty shallow and mediocre. There is a pretty weak plot, but it works just fine.

Elvira's character is the focus here.She is lovable and adorable.Cassandra Petersen has a world of acting talent that just glows in this movie.On top of that acting talent she had physical attributes which were frankly, stunning. Few men could disagree with that. The parts that show off her figure were also some of the funnier scenes in the movie.

I had a smile ear to ear from the first scene to the last.

Highly recommended to fans of comedy, and to fans of beautiful women. I wish they had made a dozen more Elvia movies.@@@1 -Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.

Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.

The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work.

Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.

This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film.

What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.@@@0 -ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988)

directed by: James Signorelli

starring: Cassandra Peterson, W. Morgan Sheppard, Daniel Greene, and Edie McClurg

plot: Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) quits her TV show and heads to the small Christian town Fallwell, Massachusettes to collect on her dead aunt's inheritance, hoping to make big bucks to open up a show in Vegas. Unfortunately for her, all she gets is a creepy old house, a poodle, and a magic cookbook. While in Fallwell, Elvira tries to make money, breathe some life into the teenagers, win the heart of a stud (Daniel Greene), avoid being burned at the stake, and keep the cookbook from her creepy uncle (W. Morgan Sheppard), who is planning to use the book to end the world.

my thoughts: I love both Cassandra Peterson and her alter-ego Elvira. She is a very successful, beautiful, and funny woman and as Elvira she's all that plus morbid and hilariously naive, not to mention she has an amazing pair of knockers. In this movie, her charms are put to good use.

I loved the whole 'fish out of water' feel to the film. You got Elvira, with her low-cut black dress, her big black hair, and her enormous 'twins', and she's in a Christian town where most of the girls aren't even allowed to wear makeup. This also makes her love story with Bob (Daniel Greene) a lot more entertaining.

W. Morgan Sheppard is equally great as Elvira's uncle/nemesis Vincent, out to steal the book to use it for evil. He has a lot of presence but still doesn't get in the way and steal scenes from Elvira.

What really makes the film is not the plot, but the many jokes. Everything from boob jokes to horror spoofing is here and makes me laugh a lot more than anything from a SCARY MOVIE sequel. I hear there are about 56 boob jokes in this film, and any fan of Roger Corman B-horror flicks will love the spoofing in this film.

If you love Elvira, you will love this flick. Also check out ELVIRA'S HAUNTED HILLS.@@@1 -"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness".

Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone.

While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple.

The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa?

With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy.

While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.

The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.

I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.@@@0 -"Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!@@@1 -The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual, – you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," –but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work – a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.@@@0 -"Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.

Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.

The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.

In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.

The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10@@@1 -If I only had one camera that was accidentally glued to the floor, enough film for only one take of each shot, and then lost all that film and had to scrounge up some bucks to buy a few digital video tapes, and was forced to make an over-2-hour movie about the French Revolution, and also didn't have any sets and had to have my 4-year-old autistic son paint the backgrounds, and also the only actors I could find were the people who didn't make the auditions of that year's soap opera, and I was also forced to not use any music in the entire film, and also the zoom function on the camera didn't work except for one time when it accidentally started zooming in and couldn't stop, oh and if I hated my audience, then I might make something kind of like this awful, yet mistakenly hilarious, Hell-worthy waste of time. The almost grand looking but completely fake looking backdrops reminded me of some of George Lucas' latest creations, which made it so much more disappointing because through the whole movie, there was that little glimmer of hope in the back of my mind that the film would climax in a lightsaber duel/space laser battle. I don't mean to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, but that's not how it ends. The only thing I can think of that wasted more time than watching this movie was writing this review. Peace.@@@0 -I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew.@@@1 -Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.

While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.

It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.

Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.

The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.@@@0 -This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.

Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity.@@@1 -his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.

George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.

It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.@@@0 -"Why did they make them so big? Why didn't they just give the money to the poor?" The question about cathedrals was asked by a student to Mr. Harvey during a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. "That's a good question," he replied. "Partly to inspire them - to get them to look up with awe." I'm not sure that cathedrals have that impact on everyone, but this movie certainly had that impact on me. It was awesome!

It didn't start out that way. For a while it seemed to be little more than a depiction of - well - a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. If you've ever been on a high school field trip to anywhere this is basically it. You have a group of largely disinterested kids just happy to be out of school for a day, the bus driver who's driven crazy by them and some teachers trying desperately to keep it all under control. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt was my initial reaction. I figured that in the end this was going to be a typical story of a teacher managing to inspire a group of disinterested students. YAWN! But it turns out to be so much more! Timothy Spall was brilliant as Mr. Harvey - a sombre, unsmiling teacher with a strange fascination for cathedrals. Over the course of the movie, his story slowly comes out and becomes the focal point of the story. We also get introduced to some of the troubled students - most notably Helen, also brilliantly played by Nathalie Press, who's into self-mutilation.

This isn't a religious movie, but it includes some powerful reflections on religious themes. When Harvey's colleague Jonathon (played by Ben Miles) says "I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else" Harvey replies, "that isn't tolerance - it's indifference!" - which is, in fact (in my opinion) what often passes for religious tolerance in our society. There are scenes of reconciliation between various characters, and the final scene of the movie was brilliant. As Harvey climbs back on the bus, director Susanna White has the camera slowly pan upwards, so that the final shot is simply of the sky - hearkening back to Harvey's comment that the purpose of the cathedral is to get people to look up in awe. The cathedral accomplishes its goal. We look up into the universe in awe, seeking something greater than ourselves, however we choose to define it. This is a very powerful and very inspiring movie. 9/10@@@1 -This crew-versus-monsta has been done a hundred times, sometimes better. This one was pretty slow-moving ; only the monster's resurrection was really worthwhile. Attempts at character developments gets botched by routine. Yeah, "routine" is the word. Went straight to video in France. No wonder@@@0 -Although this was not without its faults, this drama was a fitting one to be shown around Easter time. It reminded us of our spiritual selves and showed that behind our facades, we often hide our deepest sufferings and experiences. There was so much to enjoy in the drama, not least the rapping teenagers who provided a better musical accompaniment to the drama than the rather poor sound score in the background. The acting was excellent and Timothy Spall was once again superb. The climax was very satisfying, if rather simplistic. Timothy Spall's "letting go" of his long-dead wife's suicide was credible and mirrored well the feelings of despair that were present in the teenage girl who self-harmed. The resolution between the graffiti boy and the Muslim was gratifying but less believable. A wonderful drama which left myself and my husband felling that the evening had been well spent. Congratulations!@@@1 -I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, "grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.@@@0 -"Mr. Harvey Lights a Candle" is anchored by a brilliant performance by Timothy Spall.

While we can predict that his titular morose, up tight teacher will have some sort of break down or catharsis based on some deep down secret from his past, how his emotions are unveiled is surprising. Spall's range of feelings conveyed is quite moving and more than he usually gets to portray as part of the Mike Leigh repertory.

While an expected boring school bus trip has only been used for comic purposes, such as on "The Simpsons," this central situation of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral in Rhidian Brook's script is well-contained and structured for dramatic purposes, and is almost formally divided into acts.

We're introduced to the urban British range of racially and religiously diverse kids (with their uniforms I couldn't tell if this is a "private" or "public" school), as they gather – the rapping black kids, the serious South Asians and Muslims, the white bullies and mean girls – but conveyed quite naturally and individually. The young actors, some of whom I recognized from British TV such as "Shameless," were exuberant in representing the usual range of junior high social pressures. Celia Imrie puts more warmth into the supervisor's role than the martinets she usually has to play.

A break in the trip leads to a transformative crisis for some while others remain amusingly oblivious. We think, like the teacher portrayed by Ben Miles of "Coupling," that we will be spoon fed a didactic lesson about religious tolerance, but it's much more about faith in people as well as God, which is why the BBC showed it in England at Easter time and BBC America showed it in the U.S. over Christmas.

Nathalie Press, who was also so good in "Summer of Love," has a key role in Mr. Harvey's redemption that could have been played for movie-of-the-week preaching, but is touching as they reach out to each other in an unexpected way (unfortunately I saw their intense scene interrupted by commercials).

While it is a bit heavy-handed in several times pointedly calling this road trip "a pilgrimage," this quiet film was the best evocation of "good will towards men" than I've seen in most holiday-themed TV movies.@@@1 -After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But "the last great American Western", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.

A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often.

If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.

Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.

3 out of 10@@@0 -if you have a chance of seeing this film do see it. it's quite shocking in parts and really makes you think about so many important issues but it's not didactic. in my opinion it's a piece of art... beautifully filmed, fine music of many styles, the typically impressive level of acting that one has come to expect from BBC Drama. Nathalie Press (billed as 'Natalie' Press) is convincing in her role as depressed teenager exploited by a male classmate. Celia Imrie has that beautifully reassuring quality that gives the sometimes unnerving action stability and the viewer comfort in the knowledge that someone out there is actually 'normal', but the real star as always is Timothy Spall - surely one of the greatest actors of our time!@@@1 -The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.

Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for "klinghoffer samir kuntar" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?

*** possible spoilers ***

The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.

The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?

On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)@@@0 -Amazing acting, music. A simple and clear plot but it drew me in and kept me captivated all the way through. I don't know why it was so fantastic but it simply was. So many of the characters were so real. It moved me and made me think I would like to watch more like this.

The idea of a school trip as a forum for such an amazing plot was a genius idea and so many of the people were like people were like those encountered every day by teachers in the classroom.

The film tackles issues of religion, prejudice,drugs friendship, memories, difficult experiences and simple the diversity of life itself.@@@1 -Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.

How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.

At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.

And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.

If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison!@@@0 -A fine effort for an Australian show. which is probably not surprising seeing as there seems to be somewhat of a resurgence in quality Aussie drama. dare i compare this show to the brilliance of love my way? no. but it is reminiscent of early secret life of us. the cast is great, gibney works her magic in the first two episodes i have seen, the British cast is strong also especially the callum and lizzie characters. but abe forsythe may be the saving light (not that it needs saving) if this show is to get another season. i wasn't a fan of his performance in the awesomely awesome marking time mini series a few years back but he was great as hal in always greener. its also good to see brooke satchwell again. lets hope the show keeps improving with each episode.@@@1 -Although it got some favorable press after playing at the Toronto Intl. Film Festival, there were a number of reasons not to expect too much from this. One -- it's an ultra-low budget Canadian film. Two -- it's written, directed and starring the same person (usually a bad sign, unless it's Woody Allen, George Clooney or one or two other respected filmmakers). But despite my watching it with lowered expectations, it still turned out to a far bigger disappointment than I thought possible.

In a nutshell -- bad script, bad acting, terrible directing! Don't waste your time or money on this turkey. It claims to be a comedy, but I only laughed twice. Plus, there is awful music blaring throughout. How this got any attention I'll never know.@@@0 -Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.

The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.

Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season!@@@1 -This movie has got to be one of the worst I have ever seen make it to DVD!!! The story line might have clicked if the film had more funding and writers that would have cut the nonsense and sickly scenes that I highly caution parents on.... But the story line is like a loose cannon. If there was such a thing as a drive thru movie maker-this one would have sprung from that.It reminded me a lot of the quickie films that were put out in the 1960's, poor script writing and filming.

The only sensible characters in the whole movie was the bartender and beaver. The rest of the film, could have easily been made by middle school children. I give this film a rating of 1 as it is truly awful and left my entire family with a sense of being cheated. My advice-Don't Watch It!!!@@@0 -Finally we get a TV series where we get to see the acting talent! Episode one was excellent! The script gave us a little more than usual, yeah, there was still the "i'm not your father -i'm your father and omigod you cheated on me!" rubbish but the script allowed the actors to actually feel and live those real moments rather than show us what it would feel like if -like so many TV soaps do.

The camera work also gave us a little more than usual, there were no boring shots of repeated angles for hours yet there was no unnecessary 'shots inside shots or hand-held camera crap' to add an "artistic" edge it gave us what we needed to see and also some beautiful scenery pictures as well!

Nothing was over-dramatised or melodramatic they were real people in a real place dealing with real situations, the show lacked nothing in drama and was completely relevant. It was SUCH a relief to be exposed to real acting and so nice to let our country see just how talented our actors can be when given a real script, a real opportunity! Thank you Tony Tilse, Sam Miller, channel ten and all cast and crew -wonderful work!! please continue what you are doing, your efforts are much appreciated and do not go unnoticed!@@@1 -Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.

At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.

Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.

I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.

For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"@@@0 -Some people have stated that as of the 11th season, South Park has started a trend of leaving behind their politically biting satire for shallow spoofs; but this could not be further from the truth.

While this episode does spoof the Living Dead series, there is more. It is a satire of how people treat the homeless. Characters say things like "They're pretending to be just like us" or "They want to be human." This episode attacks a culture of people who ignore the lower class who are often just down on their luck.

So yes, it is still a satire, and also a wonderful spoof. What more could you want?@@@1 -Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.@@@0 -Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball that ever lived."

You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.

Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.@@@1 -the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH!@@@0 -Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played.@@@1 -When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.@@@0 -For all of the Has-Beens or Never Was's or for the curious, this film is for you....Ever played a sport, or wondered what it felt like after the lights went down and the crowd left..this film explores that and more.

Robin Williams(Jack Dundee) is a small town assistant banker in Taft CA., whose life has been plagued, by a miscue in a BIG rival high school football game 13 years ago, when he dropped the pass that would have won over Bakersfield, their Arch-Rival, that takes great pleasure in pounding the Taft Rockets, season after season . Kurt Russell(Reno Hightower) was the Quarterback in that famous game, and is the local legend, that now is a van repair specialist, whose life is fading into lethargy, like the town of Taft itself.

Williams gets an idea to remake history, by replaying the GAME ! He meets with skeptical resistance, so he goes on a one man terror spree, and literally paints the town , orange, yellow and black , to raise the ire of the residents to recreate THE game . After succeeding, the players from that 1972 team reunite, and try to get in shape to practice, which is hysterical . The game is on , Bakesfield is loaded with all of the high tech gadgets, game strategies, and sophisticated training routines . Taft is drawing plays in the mud, with sticks, stones, and bottle caps, what a riot ! Does Taft overcome the odds, does Robin Willians purge the demons from his bowels, does Kurt Russell rise from lethargy, watch "The Best of Times" for one of the BEST viewing experiences ever!

One of Robin Williams best UNDERSTATED performances, the chemistry between Robin and Russell is magic . And who is Kid Lester ???

Holly Palance and Pamela Reed give memorable performances as the wives of Williams and Russell. Succeeds on Many Levels. A 10 !@@@1 -I like animated shows. I enjoy the Nick fare pretty much, including Hey, Arnold. But moving a TV show to the Big Screen isn't easy and this just didn't feel big enough. It was more like a long episode of the show, and it just didn't move along that well. Judging by the behavior of the kids we had with us, it didn't score that well with them either.@@@0 -hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye@@@1 -tries to be funny and fails miserably. The animation is just terrible, looks like a 2 year old threw it together in his sleep. Plot is dull and cliched. IF you have a young child, maybe rent it. but don't waste hard earned money to pay to see it.

1/10@@@0 -Robin Williams does his best to combine comedy and pathos, but comes off a bit shrill. Donald Moffat is too one-note as his father-in-law. Jeff Bridges is excellent though as the quarterback, and Holly Palance and Pamela Reed are marvelous, carrying the film through most of its rough spots. It fills time nicely, but is little more than that.@@@1 -I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.

I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.

Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.

Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.

Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.@@@0 -I love this movie, but the music at all the alumni gatherings is just stupid.

The fateful game took place in 1972. That means that the protagonists graduated in 1972. But almost all of the music played at the dances etc. is from the 1950s and very early 1960s.

Having just attended my 30th high school reunion, I can assure you that the last music to be played at a reunion or dance of former high school people is their parents' music.

I understand the difficulty of finding relevant 1970s music -- we all know what a desolate time it was musically. But it wasn't completely bereft, and the producers of the film should have taken more care. I found those dance scenes very jarring to my otherwise willing suspension of disbelief in the rest of the film.

This was a bad director and/or producer decision.@@@1 -this is a great movie. I love the series on tv and so I loved the movie. One of the best things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was great. i loved it it was pretty funny too. It's a great movie! Doy!!!@@@0 -The film did not do well at the box office.

I saw it in a sneak preview.

I have always enjoyed the film.

I live in 1 of the cities mentioned in the film where past players moved to.

Not the best film ever put to screen, but enjoyable.

Robin did well with his role.

Best line of the film at the beginning, by Robin's character Jack: "I was that SOB!" Cleaned up here as not to offend anyone.

Was glad when it came to DVD a few years back in the wide screen/letter box format.

I am not a football fan or a real sports fan. But, you do not need to be one to like this film.@@@1 -Only children below the age of 12 should be allowed to see this film. The rest of us should take a book, MP3 player, or just take a nice nap to endure the experience of this event. This can be best summed up as a "blown-up" TV movie being distributed into theaters. Children will want to see this film, and they will like and be amused by the movie.@@@0 -Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended.@@@1 -Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.@@@0 -Spoiler This movie is about such a concept. Williams will go to any low in order to replay the football game that haunts his life. Russel plays the ex jock who peaked in high school. Finally the under dog get its shot, and Williams can save face, instead of being the clown. A great reverse tragedy. 7/10@@@1 -I saw this movie with low expectations and was not disappointed. Its so bad that it is actually funny in a very cringe worthy way.

Gael is absolutely terrible, I mean he just cannot act, period. He should give up now, as acting is clearly not his thing.. His co-stars are about the same caliber, i'm sure my 5 year old cousin could do a better job than all of them! The director should be ashamed to have put his name on something so ridiculous.. Somehow I don't think an Oscar is on the cards for this guy.

I have never written a comment on IMDb, but this movie was so bad I felt compelled to do so.

If you get the chance to see this film, don't 0/10 if there was a 0@@@0 -The Best of Times is one of the great sleepers of all time. The setup does not tax your patience, the development is steady, the many intertwined relationships are lovingly established, the gags and bits all work and all are funny. There is lots of sentimentality. Kurt Russell playing Reno Hightower puts in one of his best performances, and Robin Williams playing Jack Dundee is sure-footed as ever. The cast also includes many great supporters. Jack's wife is played by Jack Palance's daughter, who is lovely, as is Reno's wife, who is a great comedian. I can't tell you how many times I've watched this movie, how many times I have enjoyed it and how often I wish that more people could see it.@@@1 -For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.

On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.

True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.

And what kind of a name is Mungo?!@@@0 -Match 1: Tag Team Table Match Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley vs Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley started things off with a Tag Team Table Match against Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. According to the rules of the match, both opponents have to go through tables in order to get the win. Benoit and Guerrero heated up early on by taking turns hammering first Spike and then Bubba Ray. A German suplex by Benoit to Bubba took the wind out of the Dudley brother. Spike tried to help his brother, but the referee restrained him while Benoit and Guerrero ganged up on him in the corner. With Benoit stomping away on Bubba, Guerrero set up a table outside. Spike dashed into the ring and somersaulted over the top rope onto Guerrero on the outside! After recovering and taking care of Spike, Guerrero slipped a table into the ring and helped the Wolverine set it up. The tandem then set up for a double superplex from the middle rope which would have put Bubba through the table, but Spike knocked the table over right before his brother came crashing down! Guerrero and Benoit propped another table in the corner and tried to Irish Whip Spike through it, but Bubba dashed in and blocked his brother. Bubba caught fire and lifted both opponents into back body drops! Bubba slammed Guerrero and Spike stomped on the Wolverine from off the top rope. Bubba held Benoit at bay for Spike to soar into the Wassup! headbutt! Shortly after, Benoit latched Spike in the Crossface, but the match continued even after Spike tapped out. Bubba came to his brother's rescue and managed to sprawl Benoit on a table. Bubba leapt from the middle rope, but Benoit moved and sent Bubba crashing through the wood! But because his opponents didn't force him through the table, Bubba was allowed to stay in the match. The first man was eliminated shortly after, though, as Spike put Eddie through a table with a Dudley Dawg from the ring apron to the outside! Benoit put Spike through a table moments later to even the score. Within seconds, Bubba nailed a Bubba Bomb that put Benoit through a table and gave the Dudleys the win! Winner: Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley

Match 2: Cruiserweight Championship Jamie Noble vs Billy Kidman Billy Kidman challenged Jamie Noble, who brought Nidia with him to the ring, for the Cruiserweight Championship. Noble and Kidman locked up and tumbled over the ring, but raced back inside and grappled some more. When Kidman thwarted all Noble's moves, Noble fled outside the ring where Nidia gave him some encouragement. The fight spread outside the ring and Noble threw his girlfriend into the challenger. Kidman tossed Nidia aside but was taken down with a modified arm bar. Noble continued to attack Kidman's injured arm back in the ring. Kidman's injured harm hampered his offense, but he continued to battle hard. Noble tried to put Kidman away with a powerbomb but the challenger countered into a facebuster. Kidman went to finish things with a Shooting Star Press, but Noble broke up the attempt. Kidman went for the Shooting Star Press again, but this time Noble just rolled out of harm's way. Noble flipped Kidman into a power bomb soon after and got the pin to retain his WWE Cruiserweight Championship! Winner: Jamie Noble

Match 3: European Championship William Regal vs Jeff Hardy William Regal took on Jeff Hardy next in an attempt to win back the European Championship. Jeff catapulted Regal over the top rope then took him down with a hurracanrana off the ring apron. Back in the ring, Jeff hit the Whisper in the wind to knock Regal for a loop. Jeff went for the Swanton Bomb, but Regal got his knees up to hit Jeff with a devastating shot. Jeff managed to surprise Regal with a quick rollup though and got the pin to keep the European Championship! Regal started bawling at seeing Hardy celebrate on his way back up the ramp. Winner: Jeff Hardy

Match 4: Chris Jericho vs John Cena Chris Jericho had promised to end John Cena's career in their match at Vengeance, which came up next. Jericho tried to teach Cena a lesson as their match began by suplexing him to the mat. Jericho continued to knock Cena around the ring until his cockiness got the better of him. While on the top rope, Jericho began to showboat and allowed Cena to grab him for a superplex! Cena followed with a tilt-a-whirl slam but was taken down with a nasty dropkick to the gut. The rookie recovered and hit a belly to belly suplex but couldn't put Y2J away. Jericho launched into the Lionsault but Cena dodged the move. Jericho nailed a bulldog and then connected on the Lionsault, but did not go for the cover. He goaded Cena to his feet so he could put on the Walls of Jericho. Cena had other ideas, reversing the move into a pin attempt and getting the 1-2-3! Jericho went berserk after the match. Winner: John Cena

Match 5: Intercontinental Championship RVD vs Brock Lesnar via disqualification The Next Big Thing and Mr. Pay-Per-View tangled with the Intercontinental Championship on the line. Brock grabbed the title from the ref and draped it over his shoulder momentarily while glaring at RVD. Van Dam 's quickness gave Brock fits early on. The big man rolled out of the ring and kicked the steel steps out of frustration. Brock pulled himself together and began to take charge. With Paul Heyman beaming at ringside, Brock slammed RVD to the hard floor outside the ring. From there, Brock began to overpower RVD, throwing him with ease over the top rope. RVD landed painfully on his back, then had to suffer from having his spine cracked against the steel ring steps. The fight returned to the ring with Brock squeezing RVD around the ribs. RVD broke away and soon after leveled Brock with a kick to the temple. RVD followed with the Rolling Thunder but Brock managed to kick out after a two-count. The fight looked like it might be over soon as RVD went for a Five-Star Frog Splash. Brock, though, hoisted Van Dam onto his shoulder and went for the F-5, but RVD whirled Brock into a DDT and followed with the Frog Splash! He went for the pin, but Heyman pulled the ref from the ring! The ref immediately called for a disqualification and soon traded blows with Heyman! After, RVD leapt onto Brock from the top rope and then threatened to hit the Van Terminator! Heyman grabbed RVD's leg and Brock picked up the champ and this time connected with the F-5 onto a steel chair! Winner: RVD

Match 6: Booker T vs the Big Show Booker T faced the Big Show one-on-one next. Show withstood Booker T's kicks and punches and slapped Booker into the corner. After being thrown from the ring, Booker picked up a chair at ringside, but Big Show punched it back into Booker's face. Booker tried to get back into the game by choking Show with a camera cable at ringside. Booker smashed a TV monitor from the Spanish announcers' position into Show's skull, then delivered a scissors kick that put both men through the table! Booker crawled back into the ring and Big Show staggered in moments later. Show grabbed Booker's throat but was met by a low blow and a kick to the face. Booker climbed the top rope and nailed a somersaulting leg drop to get the pin! Winner: Booker T

Announcement: Triple H entered the ring to a thunderous ovation as fans hoped to learn where The Game would end up competing. Before he could speak, Eric Bishoff stopped The Game to apologize for getting involved in his personal business. If Triple H signed with RAW, Bischoff promised his personal life would never come into play again. Bischoff said he's spent the past two years networking in Hollywood. He said everyone was looking for the next breakout WWE Superstar, and they were all talking about Triple H. Bischoff guaranteed that if Triple H signed with RAW, he'd be getting top opportunities coming his way. Stephanie McMahon stepped out to issue her own pitch. She said that because of her personal history with Triple H, the two of them know each other very well. She said the two of them were once unstoppable and they can be again. Bischoff cut her off and begged her to stop. Stephanie cited that Triple H once told her how Bischoff said Triple H had no talent and no charisma. Bischoff said he was young at the time and didn't know what he had, but he still has a lot more experience that Stephanie. The two continued to bicker back and forth, until Triple H stepped up with his microphone. The Game said it would be easy to say "screw you" to either one of them. Triple H went to shake Bischoff's hand, but pulled it away. He said he would rather go with the devil he knows, rather than the one he doesn't know. Before he could go any further, though, Shawn Michaels came out to shake things up. HBK said the last thing he wanted to do was cause any trouble. He didn't want to get involved, but he remembered pledging to bring Triple H to the nWo. HBK said there's nobody in the world that Triple H is better friends with. HBK told his friend to imagine the two back together again, making Bischoff's life a living hell. Triple H said that was a tempting offer. He then turned and hugged HBK, making official his switch to RAW! Triple H and HBK left, and Bischoff gloated over his victory. Bischoff said the difference between the two of them is that he's got testicles and she doesn't. Stephanie whacked Bischoff on the side of the head and left!

Match 7: Tag Team Championship Match Christian and Lance Storm vs Hollywood Hogan and Edge The match started with loud "USA" chants and with Hogan shoving Christian through the ropes and out of the ring. The Canadians took over from there. But Edge scored a kick to Christian's head and planted a facebuster on Storm to get the tag to Hogan. Hogan began to Hulk up and soon caught Christian with a big boot and a leg drop! Storm broke up the count and Christian tossed Hogan from the ring where Storm superkicked the icon. Edge tagged in soon after and dropped both opponents. He speared both of them into the corner turnbuckles, but missed a spear on Strom and hit the ref hard instead. Edge nailed a DDT, but the ref was down and could not count. Test raced down and took down Hogan then leveled Edge with a boot. Storm tried to get the pin, but Edge kicked out after two. Riksihi sprinted in to fend off Test, allowing Edge to recover and spear Storm. Christian distracted the ref, though, and Y2J dashed in and clocked Edge with the Tag Team Championship! Storm rolled over and got the pinfall to win the title! Winners and New Tag Team Champions: Christian and Lance Storm

Match 8: WWE Undisputed Championship Triple Threat Match. The Rock vs Kurt Angle and the Undertaker Three of WWE's most successful superstars lined up against each other in a Triple Threat Match with the Undisputed Championship hanging in the balance. Taker and The Rock got face to face with Kurt Angle begging for some attention off to the side. He got attention in the form of a beat down form the two other men. Soon after, Taker spilled out of the ring and The Rock brawled with Angle. Angle gave a series of suplexes that took down Rock, but the Great One countered with a DDT that managed a two-count. The fight continued outside the ring with Taker coming to life and clotheslining Angle and repeatedly smacking The Rock. Taker and Rock got into it back into the ring, and Taker dropped The Rock with a sidewalk slam to get a two-count. Rock rebounded, grabbed Taker by the throat and chokeslammed him! Angle broke up the pin attempt that likely would have given The Rock the title. The Rock retaliated by latching on the ankle lock to Kurt Angle. Angle reversed the move and Rock Bottomed the People's Champion. Soon after, The Rock disposed of Angle and hit the People's Elbow on the Undertaker. Angle tried to take advantage by disabling the Great One outside the ring and covering Taker, who kicked out after a two count. Outside the ring, Rock took a big swig from a nearby water bottle and spewed the liquid into Taker's face to blind the champion. Taker didn't stay disabled for long, and managed to overpower Rock and turn his attention to Angle. Taker landed a guillotine leg drop onto Angle, laying on the ring apron. The Rock picked himself up just in time to break up a pin attempt on Kurt Angle. Taker nailed Rock with a DDT and set him up for a chokeslam. ANgle tried sneaking up with a steel chair, but Taker caught on to that tomfoolery and smacked it out of his hands. The referee got caught in the ensuing fire and didn't see Angle knock Taker silly with a steel chair. Angle went to cover Taker as The Rock lay prone, but the Dead Man somehow got his shoulder up. Angle tried to pin Rock, but he too kicked out. The Rock got up and landed Angle in the sharpshooter! Angle looked like he was about to tap, but Taker kicked The Rock out of the submission hold. Taker picked Rock up and crashed him with the Last Ride. While the Dead Man covered him for the win, Angle raced in and picked Taker up in the ankle lock! Taker went delirious with pain, but managed to counter. He picked Angle up for the last ride, but Angle put on a triangle choke! It looked like Taker was about to pass out, but The Rock broke Angle's hold only to find himself caught in the ankle lock. Rock got out of the hold and watched Taker chokeslam Angle. Rocky hit the Rock Bottom, but Taker refused to go down and kicked out. Angle whirled Taker up into the Angle Slam but was Rock Bottomed by the Great One and pinned! Winner and New WWE Champion: The Rock

~Finally there is a decent PPV! Lately the PPV weren't very good, but this one was a winner. I give this PPV a A-

@@@1 -Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.

The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!

All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.@@@0 -Why did this movie fail commercially? It's got a sharp script (by Ron Shelton) and great performances by Kurt Russell and, especially, Robin Williams, in a brilliant manic nerd turn that's different from any of his other work. A great renter.@@@1 -Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...

If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime!@@@0 -Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.

You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.

Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played (note to the NFL).@@@1 -Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).@@@0 -Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, "The Best of Times." In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. ***@@@1 -As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!

Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this "addition" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.

The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.

While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?

I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next "blockbuster".@@@0 -I guess that everyone has to make a comeback at some point. And that's exactly what embarrassed Taft resident Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) intends to do in "The Best of Times". Yep, the man who went all crazy with the radio in "Good Morning, Vietnam" is playing football. In this case, he seeks to replay a game that cost his high school a prestigious title. But ex-teammate Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) isn't just going to go along with it so easily.

Granted, it's not the best movie for either man. But Williams and Russell are actually a pretty good comedy team. And some of the names in this movie are likely to give you the giggles (to say the least). Check it out.@@@1 -Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.@@@0 -Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived."

You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.

Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.@@@1 -I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and clichè that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the clichès I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).@@@0 -This movie surprised me, it had good one-liners and laughs, + a nonstop action-packed storyline with tons of gun action and explosions. This movie surprisingly had a lot of good twists and turns. The plot is solid despite what others may think, it kept my interest the whole time right up till the very end. In conclusion; this is a great way for an action movie buff to spend time on.@@@1 -You know what you are getting when you purchase a Hallmark card. A sappy, trite verse and that will be $3.99, thank you very much. You get the same with a Hallmark movie. Here we get a ninety year old Ernie Borgnine coming out of retirement to let us know that as a matter of fact, he is not dead like we thought. Poor Ernie, he is the poor soul that married Ethel Merman several years ago and the marriage lasted a few weeks. In this flick, Ernie jumps in feet first and portrays the Grandpa that bonds with his long lost grandkid. We have seen it before. You might enjoy this movie but please don't say that you were not warned.@@@0 -This movie has everything you want from an action movie. Explosions,shootouts,bad guys and worse guys. It is fun to see James Belushi using his humor to get out of the trouble he has gotten himself in to since he stole 12 million dollars from the ultimate big boss "The Skipper. Does this sounds cheesy. Of course it is. But boy,did I have fun watching this movie. It is a whole lot better than all the direct to DVD garbage that is made nowadays. If you can get over the silly plot than you will find out that this movie has quite a few surprises in store. You could argue about the twists being predictable. But the fast pace of this movie doesn't give you time too think too much of them,which is a blessing since this movie is not about revealing the ultimate twist. But more about the journey to that moment. Only the title is a bit misleading and that could be the reason why so many people hated this movie. They probably expected a movie about mobsters in stead of some crooks double crossing each other. Pure fun!@@@1 -It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.

Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.

The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.

To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.

The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.

So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.

Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.@@@0 -What a good film! Made Men is a great action movie with lots of twists and turns. James Belushi is very good as an ex hood who has stolen 12 million from the boss who has to fend of the gangsters , hillbillies his wife and the local sheriff( Timothy Dalton).you wont be disappointed, jump on board and enjoy the ride. 8 out of 10@@@1 -I had somewhat high hopes for this since I like Tim Roth. I was not pleased with this film. I liked the Ang Lee The Hulk a few years back so I figured this would have more of a bang to it. First I was very disappointed with John Hurt's performance here. He looks as if his eyebrows were re-shaped for this. His performance was not convincing. He was not as good as one would expect. Tim Roth is cool as always here. The Gama thing didn't really stick to the original story line I don't think. I guess the best part of the film was the end. It had some cool action. The only problem with the original was that it was too long. This one is not as long but it got a bit boring at times. I remember some time ago when Walmart had this movie really cheap for sale and I always wondered why?. Now I know. I was hoping to to get blown away, but I was not.@@@0 -This movie surprised me in a good way. From the box I got the impression that it was an action thriller but it was too funny to be a thriller, even though it was somewhat exciting.

There's a lot of nice one-liners and funny situations in this movie and James Belushi was born to do Bill Manucci, he does a great job. The rest of the cast ain't half-bad either and especially Timothy Dalton is a treat.

The story can get pretty confusing at times as new characters shows up during the film. Things get more complicated as nobody seldom tells the truth about things. If you don't pay attention things might get a bit messy in the end but I really liked it.

Louis Morneau isn't all that well known but he has done a perfectly OK job with this one and I never really grew impatient while watching the movie.

Made men is well worth checking out.@@@1 -This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".

Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.

Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.

Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.

In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.

In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.

The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.

Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.@@@0 -I bought this movie a few days ago, and thought that it would be a pretty shitty film. But when i popped it into the DVD-player, it surprised me in a very good way. James Belushi plays very well as Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie. But especially Timothy Dalton plays a very good roll as the Sheriff. The 'end' scene, in the house of Bill is very excellent, good camera-work, nice dialogues and very good acting. Bill "The Mouth" Manuccie has stolen 12 Million Dollars from the Mafia. Together with his wife he lives in South-Carolina in a witness protection program. But the Mafia tracks him down, and wants the 12 Million Dollar. Bill can only trust the only person he knows inside out, himself.@@@1 -Somebody owes Ang Lee an apology. Actually, a lot of people do. And I'll start. I was never interested in the Ang Lee film Hulk, because of the near unanimous bad reviews. Even the premium cable channels seemed to rarely show it. I finally decided to watch it yesterday on USA network and, wow....

SPOILERS FOR ANG LEE'S HULK AND THE INCREDIBLE HULK

Was it boring! I almost didn't make it through Ang Lee's Hulk. Eric Bana was expressionless, Nick Nolte was horrible, Sam Elliott was unlikeable (and that's no fun, he's usually a cool character). In fact, I honestly think they chose Eric Bana because his non-descript face was the easiest to mimic with computer graphics - and it was clear that the Ang Lee Hulk was meant to facially resemble Bruce Banner in his non-angry state. When Hulk fought a mutant poodle I was ready to concede Hulk as the worst superhero movie ever.

But then something happened. About 3/4 of the way through this tedious movie, there was a genuinely exciting and - dare I say it - reasonably convincing - extended action scene that starts with Hulk breaking out of a containment chamber in a military base, fighting M1 tanks and Comanche helicopters in the desert, then riding an F22 Raptor into the stratosphere, only to be captured on the streets of San Francisco. This was one of the best action sequences ever made for a superhero movie. And I have to say, the CGI was quite good. That's not to say that the Hulk was totally convincing. But it didn't require much more suspension of disbelief than is required in a lot of non-superhero action movies. And that's quite a feat.

Of course, the ending got really stupid with Bruce Banner's father turning into some sort of shape-shifting villain but the earlier long action sequence put any of Iron Man's brief heroics to shame. And overall, apart from the animated mutant dogs, it really did seem like the CGI in Hulk tried hard to convince you that he was real and really interacting with his environment. It was certainly better than I expected.

OK, but what about The Incredible Hulk? Guess what... It's boring too! It has just a few appearances by the Hulk and here's the thing - the CGI in this movie is horrible. Maybe the Hulk in Ang Lee's version looked fake at times and cartoonish at others - but it had its convincing moments also. The Incredible Hulk looked positively ridiculous. It had skin tone and muscle tone that didn't even look like a living creature, just some sort of computer-generated texture. It was really preposterous. The lighting, environment and facial effects didn't look 5 years newer than Ang Lee's, they looked 10 years older. And there really is no excuse for that. We truly are living in an era where computer programmers can ruin a movie just as thoroughly as any director, actor or cinematographer ever could.

Worse, the writer and director of this movie seemed to learn almost nothing from Ang Lee's "failure". All the same mistakes are made. Bruce Banner is practically emotionless. The general is so relentlessly, implausibly one-dimensional that he seems faker than the Hulk. The love interest is unconvincing (I have to give Liv Tyler credit for being more emotional than Jennifer Connelly, though both are quite easy on the eyes). Tim Blake Nelson overacts almost as much as Nick Nolte, even though he's only in the movie for a few minutes. The Hulk really doesn't do much in this movie, certainly not any more than in Ang Lee's version. The Incredible Hulk was slightly more fast-paced, but since nothing really happened anyway that's not worth much. Oh yeah, the villain is every bit as phony looking as the Hulk. He's actually much more interesting as a human than as a monster.

This is how I can definitively say Ang Lee's version was better: if I ever have the chance to see Ang Lee's version again, I might be able to sit through it to see the good action sequences, or else to try to appreciate the dialogue a little more (more likely I'd just fast forward to the good parts). But there is absolutely not a single scene in The Incredible Hulk that is worth seeing once, let alone twice. It is truly at the bottom of the heap of superhero movies. The cartoonish CGI is an insult to the audience - at least in Ang Lee's version it seems like they were trying to make it realistic (except for the giant poodle, of course).

It is absolutely mind-boggling how the filmmakers intended to erase the bad feelings associated with Ang Lee's Hulk by making almost exactly the same movie.

It is to Edward Norton's credit that he seems to be distancing himself from this film.@@@0 -Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion.@@@1 -Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world.@@@0 -i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh.@@@1 -'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.

While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.

If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.

As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).

NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!@@@0 -Great entertainment from start to the end. Wonderful performances by Belushi, Beach, Dalton & Railsback. Some twists and many action scenes. The movie was made for me! Funny lines in the screenplay, good music. Dalton as the tough sheriff and Railsback as "redneck-villain". I must recommend this film to every action-adventure fan! 10/10@@@1 -This was shown as part of the 59th Edinburgh International Festival, though for reasons best left to the powers that be. A lot seems to have been made of the fact that it's the first Thai language film, made with Thai actors & crew, but directed by a westerner. Needn't have bothered to be honest, as this film is dull, dull, dull. Why hint at something, why shroud an idea in mystery, why subtly invoke a feeling, when you can hammer the point home with terrible voice overs, obvious shots and over the top scenes> Nothing is left to the imagination as time and time again director Spurrier clumsily churns out endless clichés. No hinting, no guessing, it's all up on screen, no need to use our imaginations. Wonder when the 'scary' bit is coming? No you wont, 'cause the soundtrack will get more and more intimidating, rising to a crescendo of ominously. Hell, I'm making up words to describe how bad this is. Wonder whether the conjured demon is real or imaginary? Why tax yourself - it's really is a snake, and yes it's really is biting his crotch, and there's blood splattering everywhere. it's a strange, uneasy film for several reasons. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it's not scary - the jolts are signposted & obvious. It might be a scathing attack on the seedier side of Thailand, yet the director has a sleazy, lubricious style when it comes to showing barely pubescent teens. Maybe it was casting himself as the virginity-taking westerner that planted the seeds of doubt in my head. Or maybe the whole thing was just pants. Uninspired, insipid, repetitive, hackneyed - all candidates for best description, but dull seems most appropriate and honest. It's all been seen before, probably better, often with more thought, rarely with less imagination or flare. Sorry. Thumbs down on every count. Truly dire.@@@0 -In another one of Bugs Bunny's hare-raisingly wacky shorts, the famous leporid* works in a department store display case, when owner Gildersleeve decides to stuff him. Of course, this proves nearly impossible, as Bugs apparently knows the store better than Gildersleeve (and knows when to cross-dress). As always, they keep everything coming at top speed, and so you have to wonder how hilarious this cartoon must have seemed when it first debuted! Among other things, "Hare Conditioned" is a fine example of how the Looney Tunes looked in the '40s before the Termite Terrace crowd polished them. But don't get me wrong, the cartoons were still really good after the refined forms arrived.

Anyway, this is a great one.

*Leporids are rabbits and hares.@@@1 -I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.@@@0 -A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: A-@@@1 -I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.

I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.

The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as "Lesbians team up to fight monsters." Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for "Are you afraid of the dark?" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.@@@0 -Is it a good idea to use live animals for department store window displays?

No, and here's why....

In "Hare Conditioned" the sale that Bugs is helping promote is over and the store manager (Nelson) is transferring him to a new department: taxidermy. Naturally, Bugs objects and the fun begins.

using nearly every department in the store (children's wear, sports, shoes, costumes, women's nightgowns - don't ask.), Bugs comes out on top at every turn, even referring to the manager as "The Great GilderSNEEZE". Even when trapped in the confines of an elevator, Bugs makes the best of the situation.

Director Jones is on top of his pictorial game as always, as are Blanc (as Bugs, natch) and Nelson (the manager - who DOES sound like radio mainstay Gildersleeves - go ask your grand-parents).

And a sage word of advice: when confronted by a fuzzy-looking woman wanting to try on bathroom slippers, always check her ears.

Ten stars for "Hare Conditioner", the best argument yet for animal labor laws.@@@1 -Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.

** Spoilers below **.

I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.

Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.

The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.

The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.

The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.

The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.

I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.

But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.@@@0 -This, along with "Hare Tonic," ranks as one of the best Bugs cartoons, indeed one of the best Bugs, ever. There are some comments about how Bugs in these cartoons is "basic," meaning, I guess, that he is as yet not fully developed. I actually prefer this "basic" version from the mid-40s (Chuck Jones' was the best version) who is actually more rabbit-sized and far more amusing than the eventual long-legged version who towered over Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck. The latter-day Bugs came to be too suave and sophisticated for my liking. Also check out "Hair Raising Hare" (1946) and "Rabbit Punch" (1948) for great examples of classic Bugs and classic Chuck Jones.@@@1 -Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.@@@0 -Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.@@@1 -Any person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.@@@0 -"Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines". --- It is obvious that the person who wrote this comment hasn't understood the reasoning behind this documentary or the original book. Please don't ruin this great piece by your simple mindedness. The reasons are far more complex than the single thing you mentioned. Please read the book as is it a great source of information. I enjoyed it a lot. This book is even a taught as a text book at some universities.@@@1 -Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.@@@0 -This series adds new information and background to the book and includes personal appearances by the author and by archaeologists and other anthropologists. It brings the book to life and makes even more sense of the author's subsequent opus, *Collapse*.

Diamond himself comes off as personable and caring, not just a disinterested or disengaged academic. This series makes it clear that his book was not just a response to a need to "publish or perish," as the saying goes about academe, but a deeply considered answer to a question from someone he respects, "Why you white people got so much cargo, and we have so little?" Because he respected the intelligence of the questioner and his community, Diamond looked for an answer that didn't insult that intelligence or that community. I like to think of his answer in a very simple way, in the same spirit as "South Park's" "Blame Canada": "Blame wheat!"@@@1 -And, finally, old, old Michael Corleone falls over and goes 'THUMP!' Who REALLY did the writing for this last installment of the Godfather saga? Probably the same staff who does "As the World Turns." This flick doesn't deserve the title "Godfather" at all. Let's call this one "The Cosas of Our Nostras" or "All My Capos". As someone who's encountered a number of Mafia people in my business life, I can say without exception, that I've never met any mobster as inwardly-conflicted and contemplative as Michael Corleone. Let's face it, these guys are in the Mafia solely because they're greedy, nothing more. In this film, Don Corleone spends lots of time pondering his past deeds and his bleak future, perhaps even the Afterlife, then recovers remarkably fast in order to pull off some fantastic business deal or order the death of this one or that one like the big time operator he is, deep down. Then, there's his failed marriage. After the break-up scenes in G2, we may hope that Michael & Kay will reunite as man and wife, but here they seem to just become very good, platonic friends who can laugh & cry & share intimate thoughts about their lives. It's as if the screenwriters try to make Michael into a woman. It's bizarre behavior for two people who shared the passion of the marriage bed for 9 years. There's some miscasting here and there, or perhaps they're sins of authorship. Poor, old-country-beautiful Sophia Coppola is saddled with a hopeless role, with too many short lines in the film that don't fit what a young woman would say in casual conversations - was given "remarks" rather than "lines" to emote. Her 'passionate' lovemaking scene with Andy Garcia looks like something from a bad teen sex comedy as they chew their open-mouthed kisses and fondle each others backsides on the kitchen drainboard like marionettes...scullery sex was brought off wonderfully by Glenn Close and Michael Douglas, but it's just laughable here. Then, there's Andy's character, Vinnie Mancini, who's also given a difficult & thankless role to play. He's expected, I guess, to be the new, new Don Corleone, but he's almost handed the job on a silver platter and has to do little to strengthen his position, unlike Michael's simultaneous hits on all 5 Families in G1. This hand-me-down process may be an authentic way of transferring power in a Mafia Family, but why is so much made of this boring routine? Certainly, Don Vincent may earn the respect of his fellow gangsters someday, but there's little character revelations in the script to give us a portrait of this young man, sadly. Puzo did such a fine job of quickly & concisely developing Michael's character in G1. But, G3 has no economy in it's story-telling and we suffer through drawn out expositories until we just want to take a snooze. Thirdly, George Hamilton was also handed a thankless task, in taking over as family lawyer after Robt Duvall reportedly turned down a 3rd installment as Tom Hagen. George wisely underplayed his role, so it came off without damage to the actor. The development of Connie Corleone's character is interesting, but it goes too far when she takes murderous matters into her own hands (she could well end up sleeping with the Fredos, if this were the real world). But, it's not all bad. The assassination scene in the hotel penthouse is nifty! Also, "they keep pulling me back in" or words to that effect is a great line. And, we recover some old-country feel as we get to go back to Sicily, even if it's all done in 1989 and they've got modern cars & haircuts. The plot lines involving the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic Church are pretty interesting, since it's based on some actual financial shenanigans at Banco Vaticani in the 1980's, but it's brought too far, again, with the too-spectacular death scenes, etc. The Grand Opera scenes are very dramatic and well photographed. But, the death scene of Mary toward the end is an unbalanced attempt of emotional-manipulation, at best. All screenwriters need to learn that we don't always need more and more death in order to bring a mafia movie to a successful conclusion. You feel sorry for Kay that her daughter is dead, she plays her grief so well, but Michael's reaction is hammy, hammy, hammy. Then, Michael dies sometime in the 21st Century, in Sicily, alone on a grand estate, of heart-failure...no grandson to play with before his demise, no wife to grieve for him. What SHOULD have happened in the last 1/2 of this movie is Michael being tracked down by someone like Rudy Guilliani, put on trial, all his dirty family's sleazy little enterprises and bloodthirsty indulgences brought into the light of day, Michael then convicted under RICO statutes and sent to Federal Prison for life...then he can keel over dead from heart-failure while mopping a floor IN LEAVENWORTH. That's how mafia dons were ending their careers in the late 80's and early 90's and they got much better treatment than what they deserved.@@@0 -Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence.@@@1 -I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.

Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.

It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.

What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel "The Last Don" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III.@@@0 -I have seen a lot of PPV's in the past but this is the most entertaining, intense PPV and the most complete DVD i have ever seen. The DVD extras are worth it because they it gives a different view of how the wrestlers act after the show (such as the chris benoit interview/edge interview), some glimpse into the Monday Night Wars era,the first match of Hogan winning tag title gold and some promotional talk. Additionally there is a good music video.

1. Tag Team Table match: Bubby Ray and Spike Dudley vs. Eddie Guerro and Chris benoit 7/10 This was a pretty good intense match to start off the show. Not too many holds and just pure raw physicallity. Spike can hold his own in tables matches and Guerro and Benoit gave good pure wrestling skills on the mat.

2. WWE Crusierweight championship: Jamie Noble w/ Nidia v. Billy Kidman 3/10 The crowd really didn't care about either wrestler and didn't get interested until Kidman did a shooting star press. Usually people expect a lot of high flying in a cruiser weight championship, but this had very little. In fact it was so bad that when Noble hit his finisher, no one even cared or knew (you can tell by the lack of camera's flashing). The ending was quick though.

3. WWE European Championship: Jeff hardy v. William Regal 5/10 I've never really liked regal as a wrestler, he lacks intensity and style. Hardy was impressive but really didn't get a chance to show off his high flying act, although he still performed some good counters and added that needed fast pace to the match. It ended off quickly which was perfect for this match.

4. John Cena v. Chris Jericho 6/10 It's funny looking back at Cena's very first PPV, how he used to act, how he used to dress, and how he used to look (watch his interview, it's pretty funny). This was a good intense match with Cena showing a nice variety of holds, suplexes, counters and some aerial. Jericho was sub-par but definitely helped Cena launch his career. Cena Wins.

5. WWE Intercontenital championship: RVD v. Brock Lesnar 8/10 This was a very intense and good match. Both wrestlers styles really matched up well on the screen, with Brocks pure power and raw energy vs. RVDs skill full moves and quickness. RVD looked great in this match (better than his later matches with edge and cena)and the entire match was fast pace. The ending worked perfectly because it still preserved Brock's undefeated streak while giving RVD his just desserts in his home state.

6. No disqualification match: Booker T v. Big Show 7/10 Another solid match that lacked a certain intensity as the RVD match but still a good follow up. Although it started off kinda slow (which it always is with big show) Booker T was impressive and did a sick move on the announcers table. The finisher was awesome, the ending was a great upset and big move up for Booker T.

7. WWE Tag Team Championship: Hogan and Edge v. Christian and Lance storm 5/10 This was a mediocre match. Hogan comes out like usual to a huge pop but his variety of moves lacks that intensity and energy. Then again Christian doesn't exactly have the greatest athletic abilities himself. This ended up being a mediocre match at best but was still OK for PPV.

8. Triple Threat Match for the Undisputed Championship: 10/10. Rock v. Undertaker v. Kurt Angle.

Easily the match of the year. This is by far the best triple threat match i have ever seen. It had close falls, plenty of finishers, stolen finishers, raw energy, intensity and fast pace. No one could predict who would come out of this one. If your going to buy this DVD i would buy it strictly for this match. (ending? watch for yourself!)

Overall this was a solid PPV with plenty of extra goodies to keep you watching again and again. Although this is hard to find (i had to pay a little more than usual for this DVD) it is definitely worth your money.@@@1 -This Movie is complete crap! Avoid this waste of celluloid at all costs, it is rambling and incoherent. I pride myself on plumbing the depths of 70's sleaze cinema from everything from Salo to Salon Kitty. I like being shocked, but I need a coherent story. However if watching horses mate gets you off this film is for you. The saddest part was that lame werewolf suit with the functional wang. I mean its just plain hard to sit through, not to mention the acting is terrible and the soundtrack is dubbed badly. Please, I know the cover is interesting (what looks like a gorillas hands reaching for a woman's bare ass)but don't waste your time or money as you won't get either back.@@@0 -This is a documentary I came across by chance on the UK TV channel More4 and I have to say I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I will also be seeking out the book that was the source material for this documentary. Basically this is Professor Jared Diamond theory on why certain parts of the earth's societies prospered and others did not. The argument he presents was new to me and argued about how the fortune of the right crops and the right animals that where able to domesticated is certainly a compelling one. As for the documentary itself it is well shot and well narrated with not to much of the re-created scenes that spoil many a modern documentary. Diamond also helps by not being to condescending which is a fault of a lot of intellectuals when trying to get a message to the masses. People have claimed his theory is Marxist but I do not buy this and see it more socio geologist. It was also refreshing to hear an theory on the evolution of society not based around religion. Highly recommended viewing.@@@1 -Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.

That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.

It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.

What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?

And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!

Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.

My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.

P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed.@@@0 -The documentary presents an original theory about "Guns, Germs and Steel". The series graphically portray several episodes strongly supporting the theory, and defend the theory against common criticism.

I was deeply puzzled to find user comments complaining about lack of new information in these series. They say documentary presents information which is taught in middle school. Indeed, it does. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the original look at the information which I have known since middle school and the unexpected analysis.

So, if you like knowing WHY things work, if you have taken apart the telephone trying to determine how it worked, if you have gone to the farm to see how farm works and how cows are milked, you will enjoy this series. A definite recommendation.@@@1 -The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.

Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.

The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.

The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.@@@0 -Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.

I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.

The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power.

I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.

Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.)

So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.

If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school.@@@1 -The danish movie "Slim Slam Slum" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie "Stjerner uden hjerner" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!@@@0 -Rock Star: INXS was the best music TV series I have ever watched! It had some of the greatest rock n' roll songs ever written, performed by 15 very talented singers/performers. It also had (in my opinion) the most heart-felt, feel-good, surprise endings in all of reality TV. It actually made me shed tears of happiness for the winner!!! Over the 13 weeks of this televised competition, the viewing audience got to know and became familiar with all of the contestants. After 30-some episodes the remaining contestants seemed more like friends than just some more strangers competing against each other on a reality TV show. And the fact that INXS was, and still is, one of the greatest rock n' roll bands EVER just added to the emotional tension created by this wonderful reality series. If you don't have the series recorded, ROCK STAR: INXS the DVD is a great alternative.@@@1 -What a crappy movie! The worst of the worst! This movie is as entertaining as a dead slug. No-talent-what-so-ever-actors, stupid plot. Who wrote this script?! Was there ever a script for this goofy movie or did the director just accidentally press the record-button on his camera and then decided to make the film up as they went along? Is this meant to be a kids movie or a comedy or what? My friends younger brother is in the 6.th grade and him and his classmates just did an amateur-movie for their school-project which outdid this geeky movie.. This is by far the worst film I have seen in my life! There is just no excuse for this flick!@@@0 -As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.

Remember the "strings" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing "Suspicious Minds". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.

As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.

Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places.@@@1 -I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a "fun" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.

@@@0 -I don't quite know how to explain "Darkend Room," because to summarize it wouldn't really do it justice. It's a quintessentially Lynchian short film with two beautiful girls in a strange, mysterious situation. I would say this short is definitely more on the "Mulholland Drive" end of the Lynchian spectrum, as opposed to "The Elephant Man" or "The Straight Story." It's hidden on Lynch's website, and well worth the search.@@@1 -Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.@@@0 -This is almost typical Lynch. However, What makes this film slightly unusual for Lynch is the fact that it looks very raw, almost amateurish. But i believe Lynch does this on purpose to give a greater sense of realism, which serves to increase the intensity of surreal moments.

However, a lot of Typical Lynch motifs are present, such as: floating camera work; haunting music; long (excruciating) pauses; hanging curtains; dim lights growing darker at a slow (almost indiscernible) pace; extreme close ups; themes of women in trouble; over-bearing, incompassionate, all knowing characters facing off with characters who are distraught, temporarily oblivious, in the dark and so on...

The performances are great and the short is thought provoking. As usual, Lynch leaves almost everything up to interpretation. Many questions are left unanswered and this ignites the imagination.

Another brilliant effort from Lynch. I only hope he makes some shorts, more along the lines of his sony playstation 2 commercials. They were inspired.@@@1 -The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."

This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...

In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.@@@0 -It's a short movie from David Lynch with just 8 minutes, but it got all the "Lynchian ingredients"! It's mysterious, dark, inconclusive, eerie, and strange; and before the blond girl starts to talk it's even a bit scary! The soundtrack is exceptional to create this odd atmosphere because it's also sinister and mysterious…

About the setting itself, it hasn't the "traditional" red curtains, but it has socking purple painted walls, which give it an equally effect of eeriness.

The plot is about a girl who's locked in a dark room and she cries for help; then comes another girl who starts talking to her in a mysterious way, saying she's there just because of her fault… We don't know what did happen or what will happen next… it ended unsolved and puzzling, as a good Lynch movie must end!

It's a great short, despite some amateurish acting. The girls are professional actresses, but I think their acting could have been better in this short.@@@1 -HORRID!!

The special effects make the TV version of "Tremors" look real!

No one in the cast can act.

Kind of like the '62 "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.@@@0 -I really think that people are taking the wrong approach at this one. First of all, I find this short-film very entertaining and interesting. I just take it for what it is. I think the suspense and mystery are ingenious in their insinuation upon the watcher. One other thing that caught my fancy was that it immediately gets the viewer involved even though there is no clear story, just hints and pauses and emotions played out by the characters that kind of give you the impression that there is a story to all that is going on. No-one else could have done that better than Lynch. This is the essence of lynchianism at its best. Sure, I will agree with anyone that people that start viewing this with the desire to be entertained without any really imaginative work from the viewer's side, will find themselves disappointed. And in good right. Lynch is not about that. At least this side of Lynch is not. The one that helped make Lost Highway/Mulholland Dr. is at full tilt here and people that just expect to be entertained like they would watching anything else, will just not get what this is all about. My opinion is that Darkened Room is all about messing with your animal-core, your instinctual self, by giving you the means (image, sound, situation) by which you instinctively react. It's not about pleasure of any kind, it's about getting the desired reaction out of you. And, that, my friend, is pure art.@@@1 -This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.

Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!@@@0 -Hello, this little film is interesting especially for an artist, film-maker or music creator or a visual artist, for:

One can feel and examine David's touch/style straight out of a short piece of relative simplicity.

You can see the rhythmic spacing of the shots, the pans and the sound elements.

Even as simple film, this creation is multy-layer. For example, there are some sounds that drone all along, while others appear (though subtle), at certain points to support certain shots.

One can see also several types of pans: some go up and down in a gentle back-forth way. There is diagonal pan. Zooms also go back and forth sometimes.

The lightning and the composition/disposition of elements in the space is, as usual and obviously, work of a painer/artist. This can be felt even in this crappy room. This is to say: one can make exquisite art already by the simple art of placing the look/view and composing the scene. Then comes the forcelines of the visuals: like digonales, parallels, etc. The light's degradées and the colours, although without too much research for textures as in big productions, are fine too. This is an artist's sketch of a sort...

All this is not calculated but done with inner feeling and this feel gives the David's touch/feel to it, as with any true artist.@@@1 -Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.@@@0 -This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10@@@1 -Completely ridiculous "period" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with "the beast", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.@@@0 -David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.

Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.

Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.

@@@1 -Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.

No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!@@@0 -This is a very intriguing short movie by David Lynch, and saying the name David Lynch is probably enough for a lot of people. This is your typical Lynch short. A blonde and a brunette are in a dark room. The blonde has been crying, the brunette is talking in a threatening way to the blonde, and that's about it.

With a lot of silent moments, but with the haunting music from Angelo Badalamenti, there is a strange form of suspense. This short feels a little like 'Mulholland Dr.', a movie I loved, and therefore I liked this one as well. It is probably especially for Lynch fans but there is a chance you like this.@@@1 -I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.

So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.

And eels? Come one, really!@@@0 -I am going to go out on a limb, and actually defend "Shades of Grey" as a good clip-show episode, which delved into the life and death struggle of Commander William Thomas Riker who was battling a terminally fatal disease.

The scenes from the flashback sequences were implemented quite well with the mood Riker was in such as when he was reliving his romantic episodes such as "11001001," "Angel One," and "Up the Long Ladder." Tragic moments were highlighted such as Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil," as well as elements of pulse-pounding danger in "Heart of Glory," "Conspiracy," and the aforementioned "Skin of Evil." Riker also exhibited courage under fire by telling some humorous jokes such as "An ancestor of mine was bitten by a rattlesnake once...after 3 days of intense pain, the snake died." This episode highlighted the psychological ordeal of Will Riker under extreme duress. And, YES, I am biased in my opinion in proclaiming "Shades of Grey" as a solid episode, because at the time of its original airing, my face was covered in sweat, wondering whether or not Riker would pullout of it alive and live to see other great, galactic, outerspace adventures beyond the final frontier...

Of course, in subsequent years, I seem to have formed a singular opinion of this particular episode...but, if an award should go for "the best clip-show episode in the history of television," then I believe that this episode should be highly regarded in that respect.@@@1 -This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.

All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.

It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters@@@0 -I am watching the series back to back as fast as possible. I am attempting to watch all things Star Trek. This is month 3 and I am now on Season 3 of TNG and I have already gone thru DS9 in its entirety. Star Trek is the greatest television phenomenon ever achieved.

"Shades of Grey" is the first recap episode in the TNG series. Having just watched the shows, these clips were fresh in my mind, but I noticed how a couple of them were re-shot because the film looked better. Season 1 always seemed real dark and ugly to me - and the actors looked silly, like they didn't fit in their own skins.

The show is essentially just made of up a greatest hits of the happiest and saddest moments in Riker's life on the Enterprise up until this point. The Data and Riker scene in the holo-deck is a classic moment of new friendship. My other favorite is when the 2nd officer on the Klingon ship challenges Riker's authority as first officer and Riker beat the living CRAP out of that Klingon. Then the admiral kicks his a$$ but good. This entire episode is a heck of a reminder that a LOT of crazy, great things have happened already in a mere 2 seasons with 5 more to go and a handful of movies! At this point in the series they are really starting to develop the emotions that tie Riker to Deanna Troi as Imzadi. Up until this point they have mentioned the fact, but they have yet to exploit it. Let the record show that the ST Wiki - Memory Alpha claims that Imzadi means "first" and denotes that she has had intimate relations with Riker and also remains deeply close on an emotional one. This episode further proves there will be a tense romantic interest in each other for a long time to come.

Here is the article: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Imzadi By this point in the series, production value is up to speed and Star Trek TNG is settling into the sci-fi behemoth it was destined to become. Watching this again as an adult I see now what GREAT ACTORS the Star Trek Universe provides. They really need to make a new ST show set after all the current shows. A DS9 movie would have been nice too.@@@1 -Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.

I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.

I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.

This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.@@@0 -This is quite the gripping, fascinating, tragic story. Quite good, and for the most part pretty accurate, considering it IS a TV movie rather than a documentary. They did create some fictional characters, and combine several actual people into one character, but otherwise this is a good telling of a very tragic and dark story.

The final moments of the movie, depicting the mass suicide/murder, are almost directly taken from an audio recording made by Jim Jones. This recording was made during the final 44 minutes of the Peoples Temple's existence. It is available in several places on the internet. This portion of the film is almost spot on in that regard.

To sum up, a documentary this is not. However, it does cover most of the base elements to the People's Temple story.@@@1 -A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.@@@0 -I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others.@@@1 -This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word "beach" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you?@@@0 -Just given the fact that it is based on the most infamous mass suicide incident of modern times would have been enough to give this 2-part 1980 made-for-TV film attention. But the fact is that it is a superb recreation of the life of the Rev. Jim Jones, who built a church into a virtual empire, and then encouraged it to disintegrate into a sleazy cult in which a Congressman and his entourage were assassinated, and 917 cult followers committed suicide by drinking Kool-Aid doused with cyanide.

Done very tastefully but horrifying enough, unlike the excruciatingly sadistic CULT OF THE DAMNED, GUYANA TRAGEDY features an all-star cast, including Ned Beatty (as Rep. Leo Ryan), Meg Foster, Randy Quaid, Brad Dourif, Brenda Vaccaro, LeVar Burton, and Madge Sinclair. But it is Powers Boothe (in his first big role) that really stands out as Jim Jones. He actually BECOMES the man, and his performance is riveting and chilling. Thus, it is no wonder that this film still manages to attract attention after more than twenty years.@@@1 -Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.

I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.

***3 out of 10***@@@0 -Powers Booth is hypnotic as cult leader jim jones who led his Peoples Temple followers from 1953 until 1978 when he led them in a mass suicide in 1978 where over 900 died. A very well done movie which may seem a little dated due to the 70s time period but well worth the time 8 of 10@@@1 -Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.@@@0 -I've seen this film literally over 100 times...it's absolutely jam-packed with entertainment!!! Powers Boothe gives a stellar performance. As a fan of actors such as William Shatner (Impulse, 1974) and Ron Liebmann (Up The Academy, 1981)I never thought an actor could capture the "intensity" like Shatner and Liebmann in those roles, until I saw Boothe as Jim Jones! As far as I'm concerned, Powers Boothe IS Jim Jones...this film captures his best performance!!!@@@1 -I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.@@@0 -A well cast summary of a real event! Well, actually, I wasn't there, but I think this is how it may have been like. I think there are two typically American standpoints evident in the film: 'communistophobia' and parallels to Adolf Hitler. These should be evident to most independent observers. Anyway, Boothe does a great performance, and so do lots of other well-known actors. The last twenty minutes of the film are unbearable - and I mean it! Anyone who can sleep well after them is abnormal. (That's why it's so terrible - it all happened, and it probably looked just like that). But, actually, did that last scene on the air station really take place?@@@1 -This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!@@@0 -Many people know how it feels when a loved one is lost. The feelings of pain, grief and sorrow can be unbearable. However, sometimes it is the memories they leave behind that trigger the saddest emotions. This theme is superbly portrayed in the short film 'Tulip', directed by the award winning Australian actress, Rachel Griffths. Described as a movie 'as much about memories as it is about love', a string of sensitivity and sentimentality is expertly threaded into this triumphant 15 minute film.

'Tulip' is a beautifully wrought, touching and heart-warming story of a man's journey in coming to terms with the loss of his wife through the relationship he shares with a very special animal, 'Tulip'. The film opens with a rising dawn, the chirping of birds and a vast landscape, introducing the sense of rustic harmony present throughout the film. A soft music plays, marking the entrance of Ruth (Jean Bain). She wears a flowered dress and apron with a sun hat on her head. She gently pets Tulip, caressing her ears and patting her back. The furnishing of the house is impressive and the attention to detail is creditable (a vase of tulips can be seen on the bench), reflecting the peaceful rural community. Will (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) greets Ruth as she is spooning the milk from the bucket. They pour the milk and coffee together, a sign of companionship and teamwork. Not a word is said but it is obvious that their relationship is close and affectionate; they paint a perfect picture of happiness.

Sadly, happiness doesn't last forever. The tragic passing of Ruth affects Will deeply. An effective scene of fading cars highlights Will's isolation and vulnerability at the end of the day of the funeral. Soon he sinks into depression and becomes oblivious to his surroundings when everything seems hopeless and lost. At Will's moment of despair, Tulip becomes the symbol of Ruth, the genuine connection Will has with his late wife. It was through Tulip that Will learns to cope with the absence of Ruth and overcome the heartrending feelings of loneliness.

Each of the characters is realistically and solidly portrayed, especially the part of Will. Charles 'Bud' Tingwell brings the character to life through personal investment. The recent loss of his own wife (Audrey Tingwell) is effectively reflected in his acting. Every sag of his shoulder and every frown on his brow make the viewer empathize strongly with the character. The character of Ruth is wonderfully carried out by Jean Bain. Although Ruth does not say a single word throughout the movie, her sweet personality and loving relationship with Will are obvious. Lois Ramsey and Kati Edwards give delightful performances in supporting roles as the friendly Margaret and Mary. They also add a subtle humor to the bittersweet story.

An anecdote from Griffths' childhood, the story of loss and discovery is remarkably captured in 'Tulip'. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, this film will surely make you misty eyed, triumphant or feel like drinking a cup of milk.@@@1 -Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.@@@0 -Lars von Trier's Europa is a worthy echo of The Third Man, about an American coming to post-World War II Europe and finds himself entangled in a dangerous mystery.

Jean-Marc Barr plays Leopold Kessler, a German-American who refused to join the US Army during the war, arrives in Frankfurt as soon as the war is over to work with his uncle as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa Railway. What he doesn't know is the war is still secretly going on with an underground terrorist group called the Werewolves who target American allies. Leopold is strongly against taking any sides, but is drawn in and seduced by Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the femme fatale daughter of the owner of the railway company. Her father was a Nazi sympathizer, but is pardoned by the American Colonel Harris (Eddie Considine) because he can help get the German transportation system up and running again. The colonel soon enlists, or forces, Leopold to be a spy (without giving him a choice or chance to think about it) to see if the Werewolves might carry out attacks on the trains.

Soon, Leopold is stuck in an adventure by being involved with both sides of the conflict in a mysterious and film noir-ish way, where everyone and everything is not what it seems. Its amazing to watch the naive Leopold deal with everything (his lover, the terrorists, the colonel, annoying passengers, his disgruntled uncle, even the railway company's officials who come to examine his work ethic) before he finally boils over and humorously and violently takes control. The film is endlessly unpredictable.

The film stylishly shot, it always takes place at night during the winter with lots of falling snow. Its shot in black and white with shots of color randomly appearing throughout. Also, background screens displaying images that counter act with the images up front. Add Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration, and Europa becomes a dreamlike place that's out of this world.

This is now a personal favorite film of mine.@@@1 -It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.

Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.

The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.

It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.

Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".@@@0 +Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential.

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds.@@@1 +"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-@@@0 +The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will "get it," it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.

Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with "Jesus is Magic" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.

Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot.@@@1 +First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.@@@0 +Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever.@@@1 +What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.@@@0 +First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.@@@1 +I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film.@@@0 +This is one of the few comedies I can watch again and again and still laugh out loud. In other places, I have read complaints about racism and sexism from sanctimonious, politically correct prigs. There is neither here, unless you define sexism as a woman as housewife and racism as a family employing a colored maid.

The lines are hilarious, and all the leads have never been better. Melvin Douglas is especially brilliant.

If you've ever thought of or tried to build a new house, you will be relieved to know that no matter how infuriating the process, no matter how much a lamb among wolves you may feel, you are not alone!@@@1 +Hard to describe this one -- if you were a fan of Russ Meyer films back in the day, you will surely be pleased to see that Haji is still looking really hot, though Forry Ackerman has not fared so well (what is he doing still making these movies anyway? If I go up to him with a camera will he be in my movie?). It was a pretty fun premise -- a superhero whose giant mammaries are her secret weapon -- but sometimes it did not pan out for the whole length, and the jokes were on a level with your average Joe E. Brown comedy (or, Abbott and Costello if that's your thing) -- basically just bad puns. Still, I found this movie fascinating to watch, and for more than 2 reasons. Good job, but still a fundamentally flimsy production.@@@0 +When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.

Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.

I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.

The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show.@@@1 +If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.

The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)

@@@0 +Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job).@@@1 +I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.@@@0 +Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there?@@@1 +I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.@@@0 +I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").

I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.

This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out!@@@1 +This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.@@@0 +Sarah Silverman is like a totally manic Zooey Deschanel and I think I'm in love already. Yeah, if you loved Jesus is Magic, you'll love this. If you didn't, what the heck is wrong with you? Kudos to the Comedy Channel for shoving this in my face. My life finally has meaning, and "Your car smells like farts" is my kind of humor. I'm a happy guy. The first episode had me laughing hysterically and I'm hungrily looking forward to next week. This is like Grease meets South Park. Completely outrageous. Sarah Silverman is someone I could watch reading the phone book. Her delivery is precise and oh so funny. She never skips a beat. Come to think of it, it's not so much her choice of material. which is some really good stuff by the way, as it is the way she chooses to deliver it. Thank you, Sarah Silverman! Thank you, Comedy Channel!@@@1 +If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!@@@0 +I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.

You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is "pulled over" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - "Do you know why I am standing here?" he asks. "Because you got all C's in high school?" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.

Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her "Jesus is Magic" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that.@@@1 +This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.

These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.

Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.

Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)

Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'@@@0 +For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.

What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.

So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.@@@1 +I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.

The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.

Why was this movie ever made?@@@0 +This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)

Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment.@@@1 +I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.

Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.

Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.

Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.@@@0 +This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word "bigot" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to "shock"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity...@@@1 +Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.

The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.

The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.

Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.

So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.@@@0 +All I can say is, if you don't fall in love with Big and Little Edie after watching this movie, then you're not human! Even after watching it for the first time, I was hooked. It is a mesmerizing experience that is difficult to describe, as I'm sure other fans will attest to. After watching it, you will cry to think that these two wonderful ladies are no longer with us. At least we have Grey Gardens to remember them! I think we all long to possess the fierce independence these two ladies were graced with. Although I have always admired Jackie Onassis Kennedy, she does not stay in your heart the way Big and Little Edie do. What a rare treat to have know such people; I only wish I had!@@@1 +I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.@@@0 +Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.@@@1 +I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.

The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.

I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.

In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch.@@@0 +I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.

Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating.@@@1 +Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.@@@0 +One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: "It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie "The World Famous Singer" and Little Edie " The World Famous Dancer."@@@1 +Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.

All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome.

The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles.

The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit.

Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these.

I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts.

Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.@@@0 +It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's "The Gates" in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings "Tea for Two". Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, " at least someone is doing what they want"!@@@1 +This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.@@@0 +I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.@@@1 +I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.

He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.

I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.

Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.@@@0 +When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.@@@1 +I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.

What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.@@@0 +Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"

Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!"

Great documentary!!

9/10@@@1 +I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .@@@0 +Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.@@@1 +A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.@@@0 +I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up!@@@1 +Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.

Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.

It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.

I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.

I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.

About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...

To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.

Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.@@@0 +Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society.@@@1 +*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***

Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick.

*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*

OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:

MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...

THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.

PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film.

RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.

Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.@@@0 +I knew about but had never seen Grey Gardens, before I saw the Broadway musical of the same name. Friends cautioned me that if I had not seen the movie, the musical would not make sense. It did, but it also prompted me to rent the movie. At first, I thought it was a train wreck, full of strange, shrieking characters, and it was exceedingly hard to watch. But being able to stop it, digest it and go back to it made me realize why Grey Gardens is considered to be a memorable documentary.

Both Big Edie and Little Edie are unforgettable and their utter lack of self-consciousness is worth witnessing. Both of them remain beautiful despite their encroaching age. They have a relationship that will chill any woman (and undoubtedly some men) and make you re- examine your own dealings with your mother. In an era when reality television and cinema is commonplace, it's fascinating to see the Mayleses' work from three decades ago, and realize what an impact the film must have had.

I echo what other posters have said: how were they allowed to slip into such squalor by their family? But beyond that, how could two people living in the 1970s be able to escape reality in such a complete fashion? Or were they simply considered too crazy to be helped? I would highly recommend watching this with the commentary track, which gave me additional insight into the film.@@@1 +Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.@@@0 +I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.

Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.

Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.

My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".

Love it.@@@1 +While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.

I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.

And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.

At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.@@@0 +Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.@@@1 +This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.@@@0 +Grey Gardens is shocking, amusing, sad and mesmerizing. I watched in amazement as Ediths Jr. and Sr. bickered and performed while reminiscing of their past. Their existence in a dilapidated mansion, (which they had not left for more than fifteen years) is both a comedy and a tragedy. This is a film you will not soon forget.@@@1 +How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer@@@0 +I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable.@@@1 +This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.@@@0 +Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one.@@@1 +If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.@@@0 +Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding.@@@1 +I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:

THIS FILM IS AWFUL.

It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.

Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.

The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.

All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.

I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?@@@0 +The daughter's words are poetry: "I can't go on another year. I got to get to a hotel room." "I lost my blue scarf in a sea of leaves." "The marble faun is moving in...he just gave us a washing machine. That's the deal." "I'm pulverized by this latest thing." "..raccoons and cats become a little bit boring for too long a time." "..any little rat's nest, mouse hole I'd like better." And there is wisdom in the mother's words: "...yes the pleasure is all mine." "This little book will keep me straight, straight as a dye." "Always one must do everything correctly." "Where the hell did you come from?" "...bring me my little radio I've got to have some professional music." "I'm your mother. Remember me?" The mother/daughter relationship is drawn in this magnificent film. This is a Mother's day film.@@@1 +This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.@@@0 +This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !

Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' )@@@1 +A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.

This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.

There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.

The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.

Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.@@@0 +I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out.

I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating?

Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time.@@@1 +I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.

I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.

The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.

The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.

Lord help us all.@@@0 +Several years ago when I first watched "Grey Gardens" I remember laughing and finding it hilarious camp. Years later I still laugh out loud when I watch it, but after many viewings I've come to see the beauty in the strange, twisted relationship between the inseparable "Big" Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter "Little" Edith Bouvier Beale.

Mother and daughter living together in their decaying 28 room East Hampton mansion add a whole new meaning to the term "Shabby Chic". With innumerable cats, raccoons and opossums as roommates this Aunt and Niece of Jackie O. allowed filmmakers Albert and David Maysles into their mansion to film them living life day to day. The result is a hilarious, beautiful, sad and moving account of true love and anarchy rule.

The relationship between Big and Little Edie is a testament to the unbreakable bonds of love. And their lives an example of drive, determination and free-will. This movie has more to recommend it than I can put down into words. It is a rare experience that you must see for yourself.

@@@1 +Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.

Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.@@@0 +This documentary follows the lives of Big and Little Edie Beale, a mother and daughter, who lived as recluses in their family mansion in East Hampton, NY from the mid-50s through the late 70s. By the time the filmmakers find them, the mansion is falling apart, and the women, one 78 and the other 56, share a squalid room. The older Edie Beale is the aunt of Jackie Kennedy Onassis and the younger is her first cousin. The women were originally going to be evicted from the house due to its decrepit condition, but Jackie sent them money for repairs so they could keep living there.

At times this movie can seem exploitative, as neither woman seems in the best of mental health, but at other times, the movie is hard to look away from. "Little" Edie blames her mother for her current state, and her mother fires back that Edie was never going to be the success she thought she was. "Little" Edie often seems trapped in the past, focused on choices she made decades ago, and loves showing off pictures from her youth, where she clearly was a beautiful debutante. Her mother seems more resigned to her fate, to live out the rest of her life in terrible conditions. There are definite hints of the glamorous life both women once lead, from the pictures that show a happy family, to the grand portrait of the older Edie next to her bed. From what we see of the house, most of the rooms in it are empty, the walls are cracking and falling apart, and "Little" Edie leaves food in the attic for the racoons to feast on. And of course there are numerous cats running around.

At its heart, this documentary is incredibly sad. While neither woman seems particularly depressed by their lot in life, the squalor they live in is utterly awful. It's not particularly clear if there is even running water in the house, and you get the impression that they have essentially been abandoned by their family.

However, as a documentary, the film is a wonder to behold, and is highly recommended.@@@1 +Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.

In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.

The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.

All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.

Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).@@@0 +I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.

Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.

All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr.@@@1 +I realise that the US Army was demoralised by 1971, but this film was unbelievable. It was supposed to be a training camp not the SS punishment battalion in a Sven Hassell novel. The writer must be a real Army hater. The psycho sergeant who kept beating the crap of people belonged in a prison cell, and the useless Black top sergeant should have been sacked as well. These men were going overseas, the receiving units would surely have wondered where all the unusable damaged recruits were coming from, and an investigation would have ensued. The scene that blew it completely was the electrocution one. Farrell, the alleged barrack room lawyer, would have had the instructor over a barrel for issuing an illegal order ( to torture POWs in contravention to the Geneva Convention ), actual assault on an enlisted man, sexual assault and conduct unbecoming an officer. Intead he just walks away. After this, discipline brakes down into a madhouse level and the film becomes unwatchable. I don't know how it ended, I went to bed.@@@0 +I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.@@@1 +A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.

As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.@@@0 +Hey now, yours truly, TheatreX, found this while grubbing through videos at the flea market, in almost new condition, and in reading the back of the box saw that it was somewhat of a "cult hit" so of course it came home with me.

What a strange film. The aunt and cousin of former first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis live in this decaying 28 room house out on Long Island (Suffolk Co.) and share the house with raccoons, cats, fleas (eyow!) and who knows what else. Suffolk Co. was all over them at one point for living in filth and old Jackie herself came by to set things right. Anyway, this is one strange pair, Big Edie and Little Edie...Edie (the daughter) always wears something over her head and dances, sings, and gives little asides to the camera that rarely make much sense. Big Edie (the mother, age 79) apparently likes to run around naked, and while we do get hints of what that might look like thankfully this was tastefully (?) done to the point where we're mercifully spared from that. These women talk and talk and talk, mostly about the past, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except to them. They live in absolute filth, cats doing their business wherever ("Look, that cat's going to the bathroom behind my portrait!"), and one bedroom appears to be their center of operations. If I close my eyes and listen to Big Edie's voice it reminds me very much of my own late aunt, who was from that area of the country and had that Lawn Guyland accent. One scene has Little Edie putting on flea repellent, lovely, you can see all the cats scratching all the time so the place must have been infested. The box refers to these two women as "eccentric", and I'd have to say in this case it is just a euphemism for "wacked out of their gourds", but this film is not without its moments where you truly feel something for them. This is equal parts creepy, sad, and disgusting, but I couldn't stop watching once I started. This is not my "normal" type of flick but I found it to be somewhat fascinating. It won't be for everybody though, guaranteed.@@@1 +Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.

Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.

This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.

Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?

The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.@@@0 +I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate

look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget

society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge

brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather

mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.

Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.

have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a

Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is

almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes

growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She

prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like

headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We

never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint

that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still

beautiful and full of life.

In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's

lives have become much less than what they once were. Little

Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her

earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and

even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings

along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is

one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a

model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to

find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,

full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic

bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.

Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little

Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,

the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver

scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly

candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable

since it's all real.

I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth

Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's

worth every penny.@@@1 +Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.@@@0 +'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.@@@1 +When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?

Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.

Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?

You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)

I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.

I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???

To sum up.....

The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....

Thanks for reading my review.@@@0 +One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?

The answer is: Probably not.

But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.

This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.

Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.

Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.

Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.

Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.

As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.

There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.

Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.

Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."

Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.

Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."

It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.

Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.

There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.

At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.

This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.@@@1 +I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.@@@0 +I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing.@@@1 +I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.

The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.@@@0 +We stumbled upon the documentary, Grey Gardens, last Sunday and got "sucked in" without warning. Everyone who entered the room became transfixed on the television and the haunting images of Edith and Edie who seemed to be living out their lives in practically one room of a large filthy mansion on the beach, eating ice cream and corn on the cob (which was cooked on the bedside table)--and the cat urinating on edith's bed and her unbelievable words, "i thrive on it [the smell]." We had not seen the beginning and wondered what we were watching and how these aristocratic women managed to get in the position they were in. Spellbinding! a must see!!!!@@@1 +When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.

The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.

In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.

It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.

In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.

And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.

They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.

If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.

Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?@@@0 +Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.

It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.

Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.

The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.

I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).

Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.

I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them.@@@1 +I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...

Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.

I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.@@@0 +Don't read anything about this movie (especially nothing that could contain any spoilers). Just watch this awesome movie without knowing anything about it - and you'll have a really great experience. If you like to see an intelligent, twisted story: Go, get the DVD and you'll truly not be disappointed. "Cypher" is not really a sci-fi movie, more a psycho thriller settled in the environment of globalized business. It's about corporate secrets, how big companies spy each others research departments and the methods used by them. The actors do a great performance and the overall visual style of the movie provides a perfect mode of coldness. Cypher is much deeper, more complex and - what belongs the story and the ending - also much, much more satisfying than Vincenzo Natali's other movies "Cube" and "Nothing". Actually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen (and that's something I really don't say this about every fifth well-made flick). Sorry, can't tell you anything more about this movie without risking to hurt your experience. Just give it a chance. ;-)@@@1 +If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...

First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.

Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.

Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.

Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.

It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.@@@0 +"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.

The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.

((SPOILERS END HERE))

What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.@@@1 +*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.@@@0 +Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.@@@1 +I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.@@@0 +Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.

The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.

There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to.

What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.

Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.@@@1 +I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).

Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.

So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.

Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.

By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.@@@0 +Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.@@@1 +My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.@@@0 +Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.

The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.

The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.

However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too "slow", but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.

Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and "louder" but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again...@@@1 +The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.

P.S. Don't buy this movie!@@@0 +This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.

I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.

I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data.

Take it from there.

This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.

Then it begins to accelerate.

The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.

And at the end: All is not what it seems.

Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN.@@@1 +Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.@@@0 +This is my first comment! This is a fantastic movie! I watched it all by luck one night on TV. At first 5 minutes i thought it was a B movie, but afterward i understood what an amazing product this was.

I suggested to some friends to see the movie, only to tell me that it was a bad B movie. How wrong. Superficial critiques.

I think that the movie is almost a product of genius! The well known director made an excellent job here and it is a shame to tell that he was out of the game all this time.@@@1 +Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.@@@0 +I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end.

The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.

Congratulations to the Producer !@@@1 +Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.

About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.

I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.@@@0 +Who can watch a movie, look at Lucy Liu and not be overjoyed. That woman is amazingly beautiful & a talented actress. That's a tough combination to find now a days. And Jeremy Northam. i heard his name plenty of times, but i never really noticed him. My advice to Hollywood is : "use him more".

now about the movie: I watched it in one of my graveyard shift. I don't recommend that to anyone. It's a bit to complicated & mysterious for that. i still can't believe i didn't see the ending coming. I'm not gonna say what cause that'll spoil the hole movie. although saying this is spoilment enough.

now i'm suppose to cast my vote about this movie. I love the dark mystic story, the actors did a good job & i love the directors (natali) work in the past. There's not a big audience for this kind of thing, that's also pretty risky. you know what, i'm just gonna give this work a 8 cause everybody should see this. Then again, 1 point deduction cause there is always space for improvement.@@@1 +The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.

This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.

Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!@@@0 +WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.

Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.

It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.

I wish'd it would never end.

Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy.

This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.

Incredible!

8-22-06. Walt D in LV@@@1 +First of all.....

What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch.

What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth.

But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.@@@0 +It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds" – starring Rock Hudson – as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time.@@@1 +This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).@@@0 +This movie is about this wimpy guy who decides to become a spy for a glamorous high tech company named Digicorp. This wimpy guy, Morgan (Jeremy Northam) is unhappy with his miserable suburban life and his demanding wife so he decides to become a spy. He is suppose to go to conventions from other high tech companies and find out all the companies' plans. Instead, Morgan finds himself attracted to a beautiful woman (played by Lucy Liu) and pretty much being double-crossed by these two companies that force him to become a double agent. How will Morgan get himself out of this? Can he trust the beautiful but mysterious Rita Foster (played by Lucy Liu)? And more importantly, can Morgan make it out alive? Wow! What a nifty movie! I was completely sucked in after 15 minutes of watching this movie. It is very suspenseful and you can feel Morgan's fear and confusion as he is doing his best to stay alive. The scene where they put this horrible contraption on Morgan's head to brainwash him is brilliantly creepy and frightening. Morgan slowly goes through a personality transformation that is not so readily apparent until you think about it after the film is finished. From a wimpy guy with bad hair and glasses, he turns into a man actively fighting for his life.

The ending, wow, the ending is incredible! The twist is so much fun! It left me gasping and cheering like crazy! Good performances from all around, especially from Jeremy Natham, Lucy Liu and Nigel Bennett.

I highly recommend this film!@@@1 +Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.@@@0 +Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.

Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.

And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for.

The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):

"This little piggy went to market,

He was pink and as pretty as ham.

He smiled in his tracks,

As they gave him the ax -

He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"

His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!

Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.

The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.

A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew.@@@1 +I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.

I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.

--

@@@0 +This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.@@@1 +I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!@@@0 +I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner.@@@1 +This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.

I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.

Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.

I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.@@@0 +If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.

To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.

A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.

You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.

If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it!@@@1 +Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.@@@0 +Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions.

I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.

I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.

While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in.

When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.

As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.

Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.

One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.

Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.

The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.

David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.

But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.

Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.

Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.

A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff!@@@1 +I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!@@@0 +Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.

In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.

But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.

However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.

From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).

Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.

Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.@@@1 +Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....@@@0 +Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now.@@@1 +How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.@@@0 +In a near future, the ordinary man above any suspicious from the suburb Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is hired by Digicorp, a huge corporation, to be assigned as a spy and steal secrets from their competitors, Sunways. Along his training, Morgan is brainwashed, assumes a new identity of Jack Thursby and travels to boring lectures. In one of them, he is approached by the beautiful and mysterious Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who advises him that nothing is how it seems to be. Morgan acknowledges a new reality, where he does not know who can be trusted.

The unknown "Cypher" was a great surprise for me. This movie has not been released in Brazil, but the engaging and exciting story is quite complex, with many plot points, and with great screenplay, direction and performances. In the very last twist, I recalled Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall". This movie certainly deserves to be watched more than once, and I really did not like the last scene, when the independent spy disposes the disputed disc in the sea. In only know the director Vicenzo Natali from the fantastic "Cube", and this second work I see is also stunning. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available@@@1 +It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?@@@0 +This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2

@@@1 +This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me.

Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.

My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.

Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.@@@0 +This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...

This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.

Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.@@@1 +This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.

Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.

By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.@@@0 +Jeremy Northam's characterization of the stuttering, mild mannered bookish Morgan Sullivan and watching him let loose bits and pieces of his real identity under the influence of single malt scotches and under the spell of Lucy Liu's presence is brilliantly crafted and a joy to watch. His offering her a cigarette at the bar is an old habit, done without thinking or even asking and he becomes lost in her face, neck and lips. No matter the brainwashing, love has a way of persevering. Love also cannot be "brainwashed in" with either of his two fake wives. In gradual stages, he begins to dispense with his glasses, to walk and talk differently and even his face looks different as the movie progresses. The music is fantastic, hypnotic, sexy and appropriately driving at times. The extensive use of black and white and grey tones makes this almost a sci fi "film noir" in the tradition of many classic thrillers. I would have liked to have seen more vulnerability in Lucy Liu's portrayal, whenever she sees him in his various frazzled states, the man she loves and for whom she is performing a mission based on blind faith, some restrained vulnerability and flashes of genuine sympathy and concern would have made it a less one dimensional performance on her part. She is just no match for Northam's talents, but all in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would enjoying knowing about other screenplays written by the same author.@@@1 +Lately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.@@@0 +You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.@@@1 +I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin...@@@0 +There was a stylish approach to this film on the part of director Vincenzo Natali with interesting camera angles and effective close-ups. It was also refreshing to see Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu given leading roles and expanding their range as performers. This film also included one of the most imaginative "escape" scenes in recent years. The efforts of the director and the actors combined in an effective thriller.

Although the plotting of the film was convoluted, the story progressed very clearly as the layers of corporate greed and skullduggery were revealed.

In 1949, George Orwell suggested in his famous novel "1984" that the future would be ruled by the totalitarian State, which would control minds and diminish human liberty. It was interesting that in this intriguing futuristic film, it was not the State, but rather the corporate world that controlled and devalued the human worker.@@@1 +I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.

So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.@@@0 +- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house?

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.@@@1 +Since most review's of this film are of screening's seen decade's ago I'd like to add a more recent one, the film open's with stock footage of B-17's bombing Germany, the film cut's to Oskar Werner's Hauptmann (captain) Wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to Hitler's Fuehrer Bunker, once inside, they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel, the film then cut's to one of many conference scene's with Albin Skoda giving a decent impression of Adolf Hitler rallying his officer's to "Ultimate Victory" while Werner's character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen's are caught up in a fantasy world-some non-bunker event's are depicted, most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a Russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the Flak unit's and his family's difficulty in surviving-this film suffer's from a number of detail inaccuracies that a German film made only 10 year's after WW2 should not have included; the actor portraying Goebbels (Willy Krause) wear's the same uniform as Hitler, including arm eagle- Goebbels wore a brown Nazi Party uniform with swastika armband-the "SS" soldier's wear German army camouflage, the well documented scene of Hitler awarding the iron cross to boy's of the Hitler Youth is shown as having taken place INSIDE the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly, Hitler's suicide weapon is clearly shown as a Belgian browning model 1922-most account's agree it was a Walther PPK-some bit's of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable, this bit is shown as a cabaret skit, with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose-stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease/belly dance, all by candlelight... this is actually embarrassing to watch-the most incredible bit is when Werner's Captain Wust gain's an audience alone with Skoda's Hitler, Hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench, drugged and delirious, when Werner's character begin's to question him, Hitler start's screaming which bring's in a SS guard who mortally wound's Werner's character in the back with a gunshot-this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account-Werner's character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while Hitler prepare's his own ending, Hitler's farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off-screen, the final second's of the movie show Hitler's funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead Oskar Werner/Hauptmann Wust-this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film's such as the 1973 remake "Hitler: the last 10 day's" or the German film "Downfall" (Der Untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story, these last two film's are based on first person eyewitness account's, with "Hitler: the last 10 day's" being compiled from Gerhard Boldt's autobiography as a staff officer in the Fuehrer Bunker and "Downfall" being done from Hitler's secretary's recollection's, the screen play for "Der Letzte Akte" is taken from American Nuremberg war crime's trial judge Michael Musmanno's book "Ten day's to die", which is more a compilation of event's (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history-it is surprising that Hugh Trevor Roper's account,"The last day's of Hitler" was never made into a film.@@@0 +When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.

The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...

Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.

It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Highly recommended.@@@1 +This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie!

The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.

A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.@@@0 +A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com@@@1 +A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.

My Grade: D@@@0 +I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.

Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.

Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.

The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.@@@1 +And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this?@@@0 +There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.@@@1 +I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!@@@0 +I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.@@@1 +This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.

I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.

The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).

Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.@@@0 +This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****

Remember Extreme ääliöt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video.@@@1 +I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.@@@0 +Good action show, but nothing new. This one took place high in the mountains, which showed some nice scenery and such. One man takes on a group of mercenaries, the lead flies, and he kicks butt. It could have been called "Rambo Goes to the Rockies", it was that pat. It did have one very effective scene right at the first of the film which had me cringing in horror. Not a bad picture, but just same ol', same ol'.@@@1 +Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.@@@0 +This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........@@@1 +A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.@@@0 +This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!@@@1 +I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.@@@0 +Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies.@@@1 +Fred Olen Ray is a lousy director, even as far as B movie directors go, but 'Haunting Fear' is probably one of his better films. Yes, it does butcher the great Poe story 'Premature Burial' and yes, it is badly paced and uneven throughout, but it is also pretty entertaining. Scream Queen Brinke Stevens is better than usual as a pretty, fragile housewife whose worthless husband (Jay Richardson) is plotting to do away with her because he needs money to pay off a gangster (played by Robert Quarry). Delia Sheppard, a veteran of many early 90s soft-core movies, actually gives the best performance in the film as a slutty mistress. You will also enjoy small roles played by Karen Black as a psychic, Robert Clarke as a doctor and Michael Berryman in a nice cameo in one of the better scenes. The ending didn't make much sense!@@@0 +While the prices have gone up a lot, and some of the details have become dated, any homeowner who's struggled with problems of homeownership should get a lot of chuckles out of this movie. I know I did.

Mr. Blandings, a New York ad executive, decides to move his family to the Connecticut suburbs and build himself a nice house there. He gets into one hilarious jam after another, from mortgages to lawsuits to construction difficulties, as the costs and schedule of the construction keep escalating out of control. I thought that the funniest scenes were where Blandings hires a contractor to dig a well for water. They dig down hundreds of feet, but never find water. Yet only a short distance away, a few days later, the basement of his house-to-be floods!

Cary Grant and Myrna Loy give believable performances as the harried Blandings couple overwhelmed by problems they never imagined, and Melvyn Douglas is even better as Blanding's lawyer and family friend.

The only caveat is that social attitudes have changed a lot since 1948. Mrs. Blandings is portrayed as a bit of a naive dimbulb who has no idea how much additional trouble she's causing, and there's a black maid (horrors!). So don't watch this movie through the social lens of 2003, and you'll enjoy it all the more.

@@@1 +This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.

There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.

The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.

Skip this bogus thing.@@@0 +After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.

Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****).@@@1 +First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...

Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.

The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.@@@0 +After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.@@@1 +Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.

It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).

There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.

There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..

Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.

I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.@@@0 +FORGET CREDIBILITY

You must not expect credibility with action movies where the superhero has to perform an endless string of unbelievable feats, being trodden upon in the process but recovering at lightning speed, and transforming innocuous gadgets in lethal weapons... especially when Renny Harlin is directing.

"CLIFFHANGER " is no exception. But the movie has numerous assets : breathtaking scenery gorgeously photographed, stunning special and visual effects ( the first five minutes are gripping and give the tone of the film ), excellent musical score, welcome attempts at levity to relieve some of the tension, and a solid cast : two heroes ( Stallone, star and cowriter, has the lion's share of the footage, but the excellent Michael Rooker more than stands his ground ), a charming heroin ( Janine Turner ), and one of the most darstardy bunch of villains ever ( priceless John Lithgow and deceivingly feminine Caroline Goodall, but also Rex Linn - in a longer than usual part and who makes the most of it, Leon, Craig Fairbrass ) Good, solid entertainment then , if no credibility.As Roger Ebert wrote ( about another film )"It's the kind of movie you can sit back and enjoy as long as you don't make the mistake of thinking too much."

@@@1 +In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe – I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.

These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".

Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.@@@0 +The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.

The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.

The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.

Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.@@@1 +David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.

To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.

Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.

The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.

While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.

He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says "I love creepy boys," perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.

Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.'@@@0 +This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.

Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.

And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action!

Brilliant movie!@@@1 +I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.@@@0 +Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.@@@1 +Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.

This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.

They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.

Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here

See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.@@@0 +Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old?

There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.

The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell.

Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.

The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on.

Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.@@@1 +I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.@@@0 +Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.

You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked.@@@1 +Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).

Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).

To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.

@@@0 +To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.

It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !@@@1 +Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.

If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.

Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.

As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.

The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.

Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

You'll just love it.@@@0 +I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.@@@1 +Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'

'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.

The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.

'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.

This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.

Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.

Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.

As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.

** out of 4

Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr@@@0 +In Manhattan, the American middle class Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) lives with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and two teenage daughters in a four bedroom and one bathroom only leased apartment. Jim works in an advertising agency raising US$ 15,000.00 a year and feels uncomfortable in his apartment due to the lack of space. When he sees an advertisement of a huge house for sale in the country of Connecticut for an affordable price, he drives with his wife and the real estate agent and decides to buy the old house without any technical advice. His best friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) sends an acquaintance engineer to inspect the house, and the man tells that he should put down the house and build another one. Jim checks the information with other engineers and all of them condemn the place and sooner he finds that he bought a "money pit" instead of a dream house.

"Mr. Blandings Builds his Own House" is an extremely funny comedy, with witty lines and top-notch screenplay. Cary Grant is hilarious in the role of a man moved by the impulse of accomplishing with the American Dream of owning a huge house that finds that made bad choice, while losing his touch in his work and feeling jealous of his friend. In 1986, Tom Hanks worked in a very funny movie visibly inspired in this delightful classic, "The Money Pit". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Lar, Meu Tormento" ("Home, My Torment")@@@1 +First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.@@@0 +Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.

But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.

Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.

The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.

The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.

Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.

I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.

In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.

It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.

Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.

Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.

Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.

Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.

Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.

Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.

It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.

Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)@@@1 +I recently watched this film at the 30'Th Gothenburg Film Festival, and to be honest it was on of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Don't get me wrong, there are the funny and entertaining bad films (e.g "Manos – Hands of fate") and then there are the awful bad films. (This one falls into the latter category). The cinematography was unbelievable, and not in a good way. It felt like the cameraman deliberately kept everything out of focus (with the exception of a gratuitous nipple shot), the lighting was something between "one guy running around with a light bulb" and "non existing". The actors were as bad as soap actors but not as bad as porn actors, and gave the impression that every line came as a total surprise to them. The only redeeming feature was the look of the masked killer, a classic look a la Jason Vorhees from "Friday the 13'Th". The Plot was extremely poor, and the ending even worse. I would only recommend this movie to anyone needing an example of how a horror film is not supposed be look like, or maybe an insomniac needing sleep.@@@0 +Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****@@@1 +It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.

Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.

However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on.@@@0 +Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing…

Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit…

Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money…

With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, "Cliffhanger" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie…@@@1 +"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.

It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.

The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.

It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.

No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.@@@0 +I don't think I'll ever understand the hate for Renny Harlin. 'Die Hard 2' was cool, and he gave the world 'Cliffhanger', one of the most awesome action movies ever. That's right, you little punks, 'Cliffhanger' rules, and we all know it.

Sly plays Gabe Walker, a former rescue climber who is 'just visiting' his old town when he is asked to help a former friend, Hal Tucker (Michael Rooker), assist in a rescue on a mountain peak. Walker obviously came back at a convenient time, because the stranded people are actually a sophisticated team of thieves led by Eric Qualen (John Lithgow). Qualen & co. have lost a whole lot of money they stole from the U.S. government somewhere in the Rocky Mountains and they really would like it back...

Essentially, 'Cliffhanger' is another 'Die Hard' clone. Just trade in the confines of Nakatomi Plaza to the open mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, complete with scenes created to point out the weaknesses of our hero and keep him mortal. Naturally, that set up is totally ripped to shreds soon enough, as Stallone's character avoids quite a large number of bullets with ease, and slams face-first into several rock faces with no apparent side-effects. After all, isn't that what action movies are all about?

'Cliffhanger' is one of the most exciting action movies around. A showcase of great scenes and stunts. One of the early stunts is one of the best stunts I've ever seen in a movie, and while the rest of the movie does not get any better than it did at the beginning, it maintains its action awesomeness. John Lithgow's lead villain is entertaining, and one bad dude. Quite possibly one of the coolest lead villains ever.

'Cliffhanger' is easily one of Stallone's best efforts, definitely Renny Harlin's best effort, and a very exciting action movie - 9/10@@@1 +The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?

I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???

I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3.

Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.@@@0 +Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.@@@1 +i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.@@@0 +Four prisoners share a single cell: the domineering transvestite, Marcus (Clovis Cornillac); Marcus's idiot savant buddy, Paquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who will eat anything in sight including pocket watches, cockroaches, and his little sister; Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach), the intelligent librarian who murdered his wife; and Carrère (Gérald Laroche), the new guy who was caught up in corporate fraud and is now focused on escaping. After a brick falls from the wall of the cell, the men discover the hidden journal written by a 'Fountain of Youth'-obsessed serial killer who occupied the cell in the 1920s. Is this journal the secret to their escape? Or is there something much more sinister behind it?

I was a little weary about getting into this film because the only other experience I have with Eric Valette was the dreadful One Missed Call (2008), which I consider to be the worst theatrically released film I've ever seen. However, much of what was wrong with One Missed Call could probably be attributed to Klavan's awful script, because (as I remember) Valette's direction wasn't the worst part about the film (unless he chose to include the baby). Anyway, Maléfique was a good way to get my respect back. . . it's a French film (obviously something I like) and it takes place in prison (which is my second favourite horror setting after asylums). So that's two points for him before the film even starts. Luckily, Valette had me once the film ended as well. Maléfique is a rather deep, rather complex, rather compelling story of obsession and desperation. . . the desire and need to bring fantasies to reality. While it's not a terrifying film in the traditional sense, the oddity of its power makes it pretty damn frightening. The period between the climax and conclusion was some of the best film I've seen in quite some time and I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a decent psychological thriller with some pretty cool gore.

Final verdict: 8.5/10. Quite a bit of respect earned back by Valette.

Note: Paramount picked up the rights to make an American remake (surprise surprise). It's due out in 2009. I'm not sure why, to be honest, as this doesn't seem like something that would be a big moneymaker here in the states. But, I've been surprised before.

Vive La France!

-AP3-@@@1 +This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.

The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.

The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.

I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)@@@0 +A prison cell.Four prisoners-Carrere,a young company director accused of fraud,35 year old transsexual in the process of his transformation, Daisy,a 20 year-old mentally challenged idiot savant and Lassalle,a 60 year-old intellectual who murdered his wife.Behind a stone slab in the cell,mysteriously pulled loose,they discovered a book:the diary of a former prisoner,Danvers,who occupied the cell at the beginning of the century.The diary contains magic formulas that supposedly enable prisoners to escape."Malefique" is one of the creepiest and most intelligent horror films I have seen this year.The film has a grimy,shadowy feel influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft,which makes for a very creepy and unsettling atmosphere.There is a fair amount of gore involved with some imaginative and brutal death scenes and the characters of four prisoners are surprisingly well-developed.It's a shame that Eric Valette made truly horrible remake of "One Missed Call" after his stunning debut.9 out of 10.@@@1 +It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.@@@0 +Now, I know French inmates are unlikely to have read Lovecraft (and that proves my point that his writings should be taught in school, maybe as a separate subject), but how did they think something that sounds like "ftagn yog sototh" could possibly lead to any good?

The movie takes place in a prison where four very unlikely cell mates stumble upon a magical book that may, if read right, get them out. As prisons go, the cell was totally unrealistic, so that made it hard for me to get into the atmosphere of things. It also moves rather slowly, which may bore people. But other than that, this is top notch horror feeling, mixing Sartre's "hell is other people" with a Lovecraft/Barker type of story, and doing rather successfully.

Bottom line: take the time to watch this. That means not doing it when you are about to go to work or to sleep or while doing something else. This is a movie that works best if you are immersed into it. Lessons to be learned: Yog is bad, almost as bad as French women.@@@1 +I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo?@@@0 +I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go "What the f*ck did I just see?" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like "The Grudge" or even "Silent Hill". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be!@@@1 +I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell.

Except..

Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!@@@0 +Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.

The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.

I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.

I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10@@@1 +All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.

And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.

The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.@@@0 +This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong?

Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art.@@@1 +As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.@@@0 +Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good.@@@1 +You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.

Episode 'Valentines Pay'

Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end

Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk.

IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.

'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.@@@0 +This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.

Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.

I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.@@@1 +The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set".

She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting.@@@0 +In a penitentiary, four prisoners occupy a cell: Carrère (Gérald Laroche), who used his company to commit a fraud and was betrayed by his wife; the drag Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and his protégée, the retarded Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), who ate his six months sister; and the intellectual Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), who killed his wife. One night, Carrère finds an ancient journal hidden in a hole in the wall of the cell. They realize that the book was written by Danvers (Geoffrey Carey) in the beginning of the last century and is about black magic. They decide to read and use its content to escape from the prison, when they find the truth about Danvers' fate. "Maléfique" is an original, intriguing and claustrophobic French low-budget horror movie. The story is practically in the same location, does not have any clichés and hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. I am a great fan of French cinema, usually romances, dramas and police stories, but I noted that recently I have seen some good French horror movies, such as "Un Jeu d' Enfants", "Belphegor" and "Dead End". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sinais do Mal" ("Signs of the Evil")@@@1 +I wish I could say that this show was unusual in it's banality,but it is usual in every way.It has the dumb husband,his smarter but boring and conventional wife, along with the idiotic sidekick for "comic" relief-it sorely needs it.Stale predictable jokes, with even more predictable reactions from the laughtrack, punctuate this noxious mental narcotic's nauseatingly unimaginative plot lines to leave me either physically ill, or in a deep sleep more resembling that of an induced coma. But it might be on for a while yet because it gives the average American a personage to which they can truly identify.A "regular" guy just like you and me.I live in the southern U.S, so to me this show is just the opposite of escapism.Down here, that obnoxious character is everywhere, in some form or another.Seeing him on television is brutal overkill.@@@0 +Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.

Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version.@@@1 +This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!@@@0 +Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with… Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.@@@1 +Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.

The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.

I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.

Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!@@@0 +French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.

Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing!@@@1 +This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....@@@0 +Maléfique is a very interesting movie. It is an unholy alloy of triumphs and failures. The central concept is great, three inmates with bizarre personalities are joined by a fourth (who the audience identify with) and they try to escape from their cell using a book of magic that they find within the walls of the cell.

The atmosphere is well-woven, it reminds me of reading about the prison stay of Edmond Dantes' in the Château d'If (prior to becoming the Count of Monte Cristo). The director sets up the feeling that the characters are tied to the cell, particularly the character we are meant to identify with (Carrère - a white-collar criminal whose crime is not specified, but it's obliquely suggested might be fraud). On one occasion Carrère dithers when leaving the cell for exercise and has the cell door shut on him; we never leave the cell, the claustrophobia is unbroken. There are also no shots of the prison outside the cell, and the view through the bars is a longing sunset over a generic prison wall. So even though the film appears to be very modern, it has a very old world feel of incarceration.

The characters are intriguing. We have Marcus, a violent pre-op transsexual who plays an abusive mother to Pâquerette (French for Daisy) a heavily retarded young man. Pâquerette likes to eat everything he finds beautiful, and unfortunately this included his baby sister, hence his current predicament (I like this comment on internalisation, very primitive). Lasalle is a withdrawn, possessed elderly man, in for brutally murdering his wife.

The central message of the movie is that your desires will annihilate you, and there's a ritual that goes with that. I think that's what disturbs me the most, seeing people destroying themselves ritualistically. It has a real life ring to it. The quite simple soundtrack backs this up well, every step deeper into the quicksand is accompanied by the dull ringing of a gong. I'm actually hearing the gong now every time I do something self-destructive.

I think one of the plot problems is that the ends of the characters don't really reinforce the message consistently, particularly with Carrère, also the concept of the book seems to alter throughout the film, not in terms of a successive revelation either. I also think that some of the images we see are a bit amateurish, more by design than execution, such as the famous "vagina eye", and the sodomy of Lasalle, for me, totally hollow images.

At the end the movie it feels like the director is in a rush to get it over with, and some things don't seem logical, for example we've been clumsily led to believe different things about Carrère's child. This doesn't change the fact though that what we have here is that rare bird, a "pure" horror movie. There is no comedic dross or genre segueing, like Cube (1997/Natali), the obvious movie to compare it to, it's a total immersion experience, where you feel as if you are in the cell with the characters. This last comment I make about it being a "pure" experience I think is something others have mentioned as well so that is a fairly unanimous point.

On a personal note my favourite part of the film is when Lasalle talks about his past as a librarian. He very vividly describes a scene where he goes to work one day and sits down in his usual place in the centre of a room where all the books are arranged in a circle around him. The books seem to be chanting to him that he will never contain their knowledge. This prompts Lasalle to go insane. That really is the problem with an obsession with understanding and knowledge. It's something I myself have felt.

One final comment is that two of the quite well-received comments on the board have confused the characters' names. To convince yourself that Lasalle is the older librarian character, simply click on Philippe Laudenbach's page and you will see he was born in 1936.@@@1 +This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie@@@0 +I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs.@@@1 +There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.

The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.

Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.@@@0 +I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless.

It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.

Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.

Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable!

Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing.@@@1 +Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.@@@0 +If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...

Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.

With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.

Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia@@@1 +If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.

The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.

It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.

I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.

So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.@@@0 +The film opens with Bill Coles (Melvyn Douglas) telling a story about how his best friend--make that client--Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) and his family are tightly packed into a small New York apartment, with not enough closet space and way too few bathrooms. When Jim's wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy), wants to renovate the apartment, advertising exec Jim falls in love with (or falls for!) an ad for a house. Once he's purchased the house, bills and frustration pile up incessantly as everything that can go wrong with the building of Jim's 'dream house' goes wrong.

One of three collaborations between Grant and Loy, this is a charming little comedy--not very taxing, with no real great message, but a great way to spend an hour or two. The laughs are there right from the start, when the alarm clock goes off and Jim tries to shut it off, only to be thwarted at every turn by Muriel. The timing and delivery of the comedic lines and situations can only be given by a couple of seasoned pros, and that's just what Grant and Loy give us: polished performances, simple chemistry, and a lot of fun. Myrna Loy is in a pretty thankless role (it's evident that Grant's character Jim gets the lion share of the lines and the acting, and Grant, as always, pulls both off with remarkable aplomb), but she gives Muriel a colour, life and bite that only Myrna Loy can give a character. Melvyn Douglas plays wry amusement to perfection as well, never hitting a single wrong note.

One of my favourite scenes has definitely got to be when Bill gets himself locked in the 'store room', and Jim goes to 'save' him... only to get everyone trapped inside! Every little problem that pops up for the Blandings renovation project--including petty jealousy and an ad campaign for 'Wham'--seems to bring together everything that *could* go wrong with building a new house but makes it believable and an enjoyable watch. 8/10@@@1 +This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."

"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance."

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.@@@0 +Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise!@@@1 +Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!

I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?

It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)@@@0 +"Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.

The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.

Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.

Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.

The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.

The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.

Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10@@@1 +A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.

This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.

I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.

Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)?

Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.@@@0 +When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!@@@1 +The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!

Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???

Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!

A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!!@@@0 +I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...

The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.

Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).

The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.

The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.

Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.

If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

Enjoy!@@@1 +This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.@@@0 +My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).

I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.@@@1 +I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.

The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.

The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.

Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.

Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary.

While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.

I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks.

The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.@@@0 +Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!@@@1 +I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.

At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.

First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.

Figure that out.@@@0 +Monty Berman and Dennis Spooner followed up 'The Baron' with this, a fantasy series about three superhuman spies which preempted 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. It was a favourite of mine when I was a youngster, and I enjoy watching it still. Stuart Damon and William Gaunt had an unmistakable on-screen chemistry as Craig Stirling and Richard Barrett, while the luscious Alexandra Bastedo pouted her way through her role as Sharron Macready. The late Anthony Nicholls made a wonderfully gruff Tremayne. By far the best episodes were those written by Tony Williamson, Terry Nation and Brian Clemens, while Spooner's own 'The Interrogation' compared favourably with 'The Prisoner'. I regret that there was never a second series; the concept had so much life left in it. Would Craig and Richard have been competitors for Sharron's affections? What if Tremayne had learned of the Champions' powers? Did the Champions have any other abilities other than those we saw? We never found out, alas.@@@1 +I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?@@@0 +I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.@@@1 +What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.

Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.

Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?

What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..

Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?

Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.

Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.@@@0 +i would have to say that this is the first quality romantic-comedy i have ever seen. it had depth and although you knew from the beginning who was going to end up together there was still longing and anticipation. the thought that maybe they won't get together... it is an indie film after all. this movie was well written, directed and acted. the dancing on the side of the road scene was magnificent.@@@1 +Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)@@@0 +The influence of Hal Hartley in Adrienne Shelly's "I'll Take You There" is not overt, but clearly has ties to his work (Shelly has acted in two of Hartley's films). Not only does her film exhibit a very tight narrative, but the hyper-stylized and extreme characters strangely render human emotion in a very real light. Though this film is not ironic on the whole (thank God), the small and subtle ironies that pepper the piece allude to the bitter truths in love and loss. With beautiful cinematography and a soundtrack straight from the seventies, "I'll See You There" is a great indie-film that doesn't stoop to postmodern irony when dealing with the woes of love and the reality of human emotion.

The film begins with Bill's life falling to pieces. Not only has he sold his best friend Ray a beautiful country home, but his wife Rose has left him in order to join Ray in the retreat. All washed up, Bill wallows in his own gloom and doom until his sister Lucy (played by the director Adrienne Shelly) brings him all kinds of surprises: a self-help book and a "date" for her traumatized brother.

The unwilling Bill tries to refuse, but the sudden appearance of Bernice at his door leaves him no choice. No doubt Bernice's initially superficial demeanor and ridiculous hairstyle detract from his ability to "rebound" with her. However, her pseudo-hippie qualities annoy him so much that he lashes at her on their first date. And Bernice is so traumatized by his derogatory remarks that she attaches herself to him, forcing herself upon him. To what end, we are not aware... except for maybe the fact that she is psycho. (And who better to play the psycho than Ally Sheedy?)

Aware that Bill desperately wants to see Rose, Bernice offers her car, but on the condition that he take her somewhere first. On the way, she proceeds to hold Bill prisoner with his own gun (a Pinkerton Detective, no less). An imbroglio of angst, resentment, redemption, passion and violence ensue as Bill and Bernice find themselves on their way to the country home of Ray and Rose... of course, with a few stops along the way.@@@1 +"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.

Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru.

Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.

I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.

The roles are well played but the story is thin.@@@0 +Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.

Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.

Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.

The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.

The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.@@@1 +Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.@@@0 +This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production.@@@1 +It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.@@@0 +I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...

It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.

I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!@@@1 +Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.@@@0 +Real cool, smart movie. I loved Sheedy's colors, especially the purple car. Alice Drummond is Wise And Wonderful as Stella. I liked Sheedy's reference to how her face had gotten fatter. The roadside dance scene is brilliant. Really liked this one.@@@1 +Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.@@@0 +I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy:

"It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless"@@@1 +I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure@@@0 +"I'll Take You There" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.@@@1 +Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.

I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)@@@0 +This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.@@@1 +This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."@@@0 +For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.

This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.

If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.@@@1 +Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful.....@@@0 +At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in.

long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.

i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....

it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....

what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.

well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try?

i would@@@1 +I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.@@@0 +Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.

After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.

The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.

It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.

Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies."@@@1 +Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.

Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time.

We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's

based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.

I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I

didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended.

*/*****@@@0 +"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.

Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.

My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood.@@@1 +I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.@@@0 +If you are a fan of Altman's large ensemble casts, as evidenced in major films like M.A.S.H., Nashville, Gosford Park, and lesser seen films like A Wedding, then you will no doubt be entertained by HealtH. Centered around a Health Convention where two women are running for President, HealtH contains many of Altman's latter 70s regulars like Paul Dooley (who helped write the film), Carol Burnett, and Henry Gibson, while also including top star Altman newcomers like Lauren Bacall, James Garner, and Glenda Jackson. Like a lot of Altman ensemble films there are numerous subplots in this film, but it is not nearly as overwhelming as films like Nashville or A Wedding, rather it has a more centered feel, perhaps like M.A.S.H. or Gosford Park. The whole thing is an obvious satire on the Health movement, filled with over-top, outlandish, contradictive characters, with guest stars like Dick Cavett providing a wry commentary on the whole thing. Underlining the whole election process is Altman's characteristic pessimism about politics and public appeal but what is most appealing about this film is the sheer fun most people seem to be having. This would be one of Altman's last films like this for a while!@@@1 +Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.@@@0 +I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.

Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.

Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.

This film is special. Get it, now!@@@1 +This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.

- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line

Yuck!

@@@0 +I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.@@@1 +The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.

Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....@@@0 +it's all very simple. Jake goes to prison, and spends five years with the con and the chess masters. they get compassionate about his history of loss and failure, and utterly misery that he lives on because of his belief in his mastery of small tricks and control of the rules of small crooks. they decide to give Jake the ultimate freedom: from his innermost fears, from what he believes to be himself. for that, they take him on a trip where he got to let go all the fear, all the pride, all the hope - to be reborn as true master of his will.

it's a clever movie about the journey of illumination, about the infinite gambles and games that we do with and within ourselves. 10/10, no doubt.@@@1 +Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?@@@0 +I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.@@@1 +This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!@@@0 +Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.

The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?@@@1 +Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10@@@0 +Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.@@@1 +Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.

Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?

But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137@@@0 +I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.

Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".@@@1 +Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.@@@0 +First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.

I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver.

It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.

However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.

Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.@@@1 +The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.@@@0 +I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!@@@1 +honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.

Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!!@@@0 +I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.@@@1 +Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me "what did she say that for?" and "why did he do that?" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply "bringing realism" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. "Prehysteria!" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh.@@@0 +In the classic sense of the four humors (which are not specific to the concept of funny or even entertainment), Altman's "H.E.A.L.T.H." treats all of the humors, and actually in very funny, entertaining ways. There's the Phlegm, as personified by Lauren Bacall's very slow, guarded, and protective character Esther Brill, who's mission in life appears to be all about appearance, protecting the secrets of her age and beauty more than her well-being. There's Paul Dooley's Choleric Dr. Gil Gainey, who like a fish out of water (perhaps more like a seal) flops around frenetically, barking and exhorting the crowds to subscribe to his aquatic madness. The Melancholy of Glenda Jackson's Isabella Garnell smacks of Shakespeare's troubled and self-righteous Hamlet -- even proffering a soliloquy or two. And let's not forget Henry Gibson's Bile character, Bobby Hammer ("The breast that feeds the baby rules the world"). Then there's the characters Harry Wolff and Gloria Burbank (James Garner and Carol Burnett, respectively), relatively sane characters striving to find some kind of balance amongst all the companion and extreme humors who have convened for H.E.A.L.T.H. -- a kind of world trade organization specializing in H.E.A.L.T.H., which is to say anything but health. This is Altman at his classic best.@@@1 +I read the back of the box and it talked about Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. I thought, "wonderful! This will be great!" I was so wrong. The story was all screwed up. In fact I still don't get it. It just seems to me that all the characters did was drink, smoke (opium?) and have sex. Not that those aren't good movie qualities, but please! Where was the story? I made myself finish the movie, and yes, it did pick up towards the end, but by then the movie was almost over. Rent it if you really want to. Just don't trust the back of the box.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_8.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_8.txt index 6747ff8..d08450e 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_8.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_8.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -Powers Boothe turns in a stellar performance as 1970's cult figure Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple. Jones physical likeness to Jones is uncanny and the story is acted out chillingly. The movie keeps you riveted and is a must see for anyone. check it out.@@@1 -Murder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to "the end of the line"...

TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of "guest star" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up "Me Decade" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.@@@0 -I read a few reviews of this TV movie which all said that the film dragged on for too long and that it was basically only sensationalistic entertainment. I agree that perhaps, the film goes on a bit too long (2h30 would have been enough...) but I certainly do not think it sensationalize the subject matter. Jim Jones' expansive power trip and slow degradation into mental illness, paranoia and drug abuse are never treated in a voyeuristic manner. The movie takes its time in showing how Jones recruited followers (Brenda Vaccaro's and Brad Dourif's character are stand-outs in that matter) but also in observing an uncanny shift in Jones' perception of reality. It is mind-boggling to see an egalitarian, left-wing and compassionnate preacher become such a destructive and cruel dictator. Perhaps the movie doesn't explore Jones' motivations enough, which can make the whole ordeal a bit superficial at times (may have to do with censorship as well...) But Powers Boothe's mesmerizing performance makes it all come true. I am not familiar with the details of the real Jim Jones' life, but Boothe sure makes the monster he plays believable and real. The movie features many strong scenes, among them the preaching messes of Jones, Jones's meeting with Father Divine (a remarquable James Earl Jones), Congressman Leo Ryan (Ned Beatty)'s visit to the Guyana camp and of course, the suicide scene. It is quite a gloomy spectable to watch and Boothe is quite commanding in those last moments. Madge Sinclair shines in this scene as one of the suddenly sceptic follower, and so do Veronica Cartwright (as Jones' wife) and Brad Dourif, especially when their time comes to drink the murderous potion. The relative calm of the end of this scene, the tasteful direction and the contrasting beauty of the natural surroundings all work in making those images quite impossible to erase from one's mind. A disturbing reflection on human nature and its weaknesses. Worth watching, if only to keep in mind one of the truly horrific events of the 20th century. Not to let it be repeated again. Like, ironically, the inscription in Jim Jones' camp: "Those who do not know the past are bound to repeat it".@@@1 -As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.

It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.@@@0 -This isn't the best Bigfoot ever made, but by the recent standards of Nature gone awry movies, mostly showing on the Sci-Fi channel, this is quality stuff. It has some action, some humor, decent F/X and Bigfoot. CG is used, but so are some practical F/X, which I like.

Overall this movie is worth a watch if you are a fan of B horror/sci-fi and need a fix. It's better than the movie Sasquatch and not a sequel to it, so don't be fooled.

The acting is better than you may expect to find in a movie like this and the directing is more than adequate. Expect a bit of a lul as the characters are "developed", but know that things will pick up. If you are watching a DVD you may want to skip a chapter or two.@@@1 -Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.@@@0 -"Sasquatch Hunters" actually wasn't as bad as I thought.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling into the woods, Park Rangers Charles Landon, (Kevin O'Connor) Roger Gordon, (Matt Latimore) Brian Stratton (David Zelina) Spencer Combs, (Rick Holland) and his sister Janet, (Stacey Branscombe) escort Dr. Helen Gilbert, (Amy Shelton-White) her boss Dr. Ethan Edwards, (Gary Sturm) and assistant Louise Keaton, (Juliana Dever) to find the site of some reputed bones found in the area. When they make camp, the team discovers a giant burial ground and more strange bones littering the area. When members of the group start to disappear, they start to wander through the woods to safety. It's discovered that a Sasquatch is behind the killings, and the team band together to survive.

The Good News: This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The movie really starts to pick up some steam at around the half-way point, when the creature attacks. That is a masterful series of scenes, as the whole group is subjected to attacks by the creature, and the suspense throughout the entire play-out is extremely high. The wooded area is most appropriately milked during these parts, heightening the tension and wondering when a single person wandering around in the forest will get their comeuppance. Also spread quite liberally through the movie is the effective use of off-screen growls and roars that are truly unworldly. They really do add much to make this part so creepy, as well as the other times the growling shriek is heard. It's quite effective, and works well. It's quite nice that the later part of the film picks up the pace, as it goes out pretty well on a high note of action. One scene especially I feel must point out as being a special scene on first viewing. As a man is running through the forest from the creature, he spots the expedition that has gone on looking for it. Raising his hands to holler to them for help, the second he goes to announce his presence is he attacked from out of nowhere and killed quite hastily. It caught me by surprise and actually gave me a little jump on first viewing.

The Bad News: There was only a couple things to complain about here, and one is a usual complaint. The creature here is mostly rendered by horrible CGI, which made him look totally ridiculous and destroys any credibility it might've had. The air of menace conjured up by the opening of the film is almost shot out the window when the creature appears on screen. It's so distracting that it's a shame a little more work wasn't put into it. I've complained about this one a lot, and is something that really should be done away with, as it doesn't look that realistic and is quite fake. Another big one is the off-screen kills in here. Very often in the film is a person grabbed and then yanked away, and then finding the bloody body afterward. It's quite aggravating when the kills look nice and juicy afterward. Otherwise, I don't really have much of a problem with this one, as everything else that's usually critiqued about this one didn't really bother me, but it is called on for others beyond this stuff.

The Final Verdict: I kinda liked this one, but it's still not the best Sasquatch movie ever. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, and if viewed that way, it's actually quoit enjoyable. Fans of these films should give this one a look, and those that like the Sci-Fi Creature Features might find some nice things in here as well.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and some graphic carcasses@@@1 -When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.

Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.

Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.

However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.@@@0 -Rented the movie as a joke. My friends and I had so much fun laughing at it that I went and found a used copy and bought it for myself. Now when all my friends are looking for a funny movie I give them Sasquatch Hunters. It needs to be said though there is a rule that was made that made the movie that much better. No talking is allowed while the movie is on unless the words are Sasquatch repeated in a chant. I loved the credit at the end of the movie as well. "Thanks for the Jeep, Tom!" Whoever Tom is I say thank you because without your Jeep the movie may not have been made. In short a great movie if you are looking for something to laugh at. If you want a good movie maybe look for something else but if you don't mind a laugh at the expense of a man in a monkey suit grab yourself a copy.@@@1 -This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!

First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.

And that's it for the good things.

The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.

The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)

Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.

Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?@@@0 -Fragglerock is excellent in the way that Schindler's List was excellent. A Great watch for children and adults of all genders. Big noses can be seen as hinting towards phallic symbols, in the same way that H.R. Puff N Stuff had hinted towards marijuana smoking. Your kids will love this movie. I enjoyed it very much as a child. My father showed me this movie as a child. He enjoyed it as well and pointed out that the exaggerated noses were phallic symbols. Although at the time I had no clue about what those were. The movie is comedy and adventure. The storyline is wacky and cheerful. I and you shall enjoy this together.@@@1 -Watch the Original with the same title from 1944! This made for TV movie, is just god-awful! Although it does use (as far as I can tell) almost the same dialog, it just doesn't work! Is it the acting, the poor directing? OK so it's made for TV, but why watch a bad copy, when you can get your hands on the superb original? Especially as you'll be spoiled to the plot and won't enjoy the original as much, as if you've watched it first!

There are a few things that are different from the original (it's shorter for once), but all are for the worse! The actors playing the parts here, just don't fit the bill! You just don't believe them and who could top Edward G. Robinsons performance from the original? If you want, only watch it after you've seen the original and even then you'll be very brave, if you watch it through! It's almost sacrilege!@@@0 -Everything was better in past days. Even children's television. And Fraggle Rock proves my point quite easily. At the time of writing this comment I am fourteen years old but even in my teen years I can't resist the charm of Fraggle Rock. For those of you that have indeed been living under a rock (haha!), Fraggle Rock is about a horde of playful and goofy creatures called Fraggles who live-amazingly-in a rock. But they're not the only creatures. The rock is inhabited with many other species like the hardworking Doozers and countless living plants. Outside the rock on one side live inventor-scientist Doc and his dog Sprocket (who later befriends Gobo Fraggle), on the other side a family of Gorgs-supposed rulers of the Universe. The five main Fraggles Gobo (fearless leader), Mokey (arty and peaceful), Wembley (indecisive and a friend to Gobo), Boober (a pessimistic domestic god) and Red (loves anything to do with sport and general feistyness)get caught up in some strange situations each episode while at the same time sing and dance their cares away.

Fraggle Rock is definitely a family show-the plots may have intricate details that infants may not follow well, but the song-and-dance routines will hold their attention. The characters are strong and likable, their conflicts believable and their adventures thrilling. The Gorgs are frightening, Doc and Sprocket enlightening, Uncle Travelling Matt hilarious (the postcard segments are very 80s!) and the final episode, Change of Address, genuinely touching. Let's go down to Fraggle Rock again!@@@1 -It was hard to watch this film and be totally fair and objective since I am a big fan the original 1944 movie. That, to me and many others, is one of the greatest film noirs ever made. Realizing this is simply a shortened made-for-TV film and that most people had trashed it, I didn't expect much, but you can't help but compare this with the '44 film. Scene after scene, I found myself comparing what I was looking at it, and remembering how it played out with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and others. Now I was seeing these famous actors playing their famous roles replaced by Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar and Lee J. Cobb.

When it was all over, I found it wasn't as bad as I had expected but it's no match for the 1944 original. The two main areas in which this made-for-TV film wasn't as good were (1) the electricity between the two leads was missing and (2) being only 90 minutes, they rushed the story with hardly time to develop the plot, characters and chemistry between those leads. Crenna and Eggar were flat, and simply no match for MacMurray and Stanwyck as "Walter Neff" and "Phyllis Dietrichson," respectively.

Where this re-make held its own was in the other characters, such as "Barton Keyes" and "Edward Norton." Cobb was terrific as Keyes and Robert Webber as Norton, head of the insurance company. It also was somewhat interesting to see the time frame changed, so the houses, cars, telephones, dictating machines, etc., were all early '70s instead of mid '40s. Otherwise, the storyline was very similar, just rushed.

However, one viewing was enough and I will happily go back to the original version for the rest of my viewings of this classic story and film.@@@0 -After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others.@@@1 -When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.

Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.

Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?

This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.@@@0 -At one end of the Eighties Warren Beatty created and starred in the literate epic Reds about the founding of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of iconoclast radical John Reed. It was a profound film both entertaining and with a message presented by an all star cast. At the end of the decade Warren Beatty created another kind of epic in Dick Tracy that makes no pretense to being anything other than entertainment with a whole bunch of the best actors around just having a great old time hamming it up under tons of makeup.

That both Reds and Dick Tracy could come from the same individual speaks volumes about the range this man has as a player. In this film Beatty managed to get all the famous cartoon characters from the strip and put them in one original screenplay.

The city's top mobster Big Boy Caprice is making a move to really eliminate competition. The film opens with him rubbing out Lips Manlis's henchmen in a Valentine Massacre style shooting and then Lips himself being fitted for a cement overcoat. But Caprice's moves are making him a target for Tracy.

In the meantime a third mysterious and faceless individual is looking to topple Caprice himself. Will our hero sort out this thicket of crime?

The spirit of fun this film has is truly infectious. When people like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, R.G. Armstrong get themselves outrageously made-up to look like the cartoon creations of strip author Chester Gould and then indulge in an exercise of carving the biggest slice of ham, you've got to love this film.

Al Pacino got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but any of these guys could have, it's only that Pacino as Big Boy Caprice gets the most screen time. Only Beatty plays it completely straight, the others all seem to play off of him. Dick Tracy won Oscars for Best Art&Set Design, Best Song written by Stephen Sondheim and introduced by Madonna, Sooner Or Later. The fact he was even able to get somebody like Sondheim to write a score for this film only shows Sondheim wanted to get in on the fun. As for Madonna, the Material Girl does more than hold her own with all these acting heavyweights as club torch singer Breathless Mahoney.

Before this film, Dick Tracy movies were consigned to the B pictures and worse as Saturday afternoon serials. The only thing that rivals this all star extravaganza is a radio broadcast done for Armed Forces Radio during World War II that got to vinyl. Can you believe a cast like Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore, Jimmy Durante, Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, and the Andrews Sisters? Try and find a recording of that gem.

Until then Warren Beatty's classic comic strip for the big screen will do nicely.@@@1 -This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.

The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.

The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.

There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.@@@0 -Dick Tracy wasn't the best for many comic book fans, because they wanted something with blood like Batman. Dick Tracy plays the innocence of just being a comic book with villains that have severe appearance disorder and being fun. Warren Beatty directs and stars as the main character that fights crime without even using super powers. I have liked Dick Tracy since I was a child because of the comic atmosphere of the main colors: red, blue, orange, yellow, green and black. This is the perfect film for anybody to watch with their children. Al Pacino is like the Jack Nicholson in Batman and plays Big Boy Caprice with zest. Madonna as the babe who is the second villain in this film doesn't play the same boy toy she represents. Like I said, no blood, obscenities, sexually innuendo or anything to offend anybody.@@@1 -Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.

The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.

The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.

If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...

@@@0 -"Tulip" is on the "Australian All Shorts" video from "Tribe First Rites" showcasing the talents of first time directors.

I wish more scripts had such excellent dialogue.

I hope Rachel Griffiths has more stories to tell, she does it so well.@@@1 -Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.

The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama.

Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.

Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.@@@0 -I still liked it though. Warren Beatty is only fair as the comic book hero. What saves this movie is the set, the incredible cast and it offshoots a mediocre script. I really expected something more substantial in the terms of action, or plot but I got very little. The main reason to watch this movie is to watch some of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time in such an unusual film.

The one person who did a terrible job and did not even belong in this film was Madonna. She did not belong in this movie and her acting job was pretty bad. The movie at some points just stood still. You expected something more and you got nothing. Al Pacino plays a really bad dude and he does pretty good. He and Beatty do make an excellent good guy and bad guy.

It is also interesting to see Dustin Hoffman, and Warren Beatty in a film other than Isthar. I did not see Ishtar but I heard bad things. The thing about this movie is it is good, but it could have been so much better. I liked it as a child because I thought it looked cool, and visually the movie is amazing, the sets are incredible, the writing is only fair, and with such a cast in the movie I would expect a little better anyway.

SPOILER

I especially thought the finale was not big enough. It was interesting but for such a grand scale film I just thought it could have ended with a little more of a bang. The reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. The movie only uses the 7 comic book colors making it all that more excellent visually anyway.

The costumes and makeup were flawless as well. The facial makeup for the villains was great. Beatty is just not up to such a bigger than life character. Still, this is a good movie that could have been much much more. It is to me better than Batman, the other comic book adaptation that came out close to the same time. Of course that movie was much bigger in terms of gross.@@@1 -I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered.@@@0 -Dick Tracy was originally a comic book created in 1931 by Chester Gould. He is a plainclothes detective who tracks down a crew of villains, ranging from all types of visually original characters such as Flattop to The Blank to Big Boy Caprice. (These villains became so popular in the 40's that Warner Bros. created their own take on the Tracy-style villains in such cartoons as Daffy Duck) Tracy's comics were known for their liberal use of gunplay and the up-to-date technology advances (notably the wristwatch communicator), which got their fair share of screen time on this excellent movie. The music was done wonderfully by Danny Elfman, and the original songs by Madonna were interesting, but they were not the high point for her career. It's weird because as you watch the film and see the suspenseful moments, the film feels so much like Batman because of Elfman's memorable sound to his pieces.

I love the tough-talking kid, Pacino's acting as Big Boy Caprice (and that chin!), Madonna's take on villainy, and the cinematography and directing were impeccable. This film was very professionally made and features tons of great actors who were known as great actors for a while before this film was made (Warren Beatty, Al Pacino, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Mandy Patinkin, Catherine O'Hara, Dick Van Dyke). The film was directed by Beatty himself, which was interesting. It is almost like Beatty saw himself as Tracy in a past life or something because he really fit the part.

I had to give this film an 8/10 for everything that it brought to cinema that got overlooked (for whatever reason). There have been tons of misunderstandings over the rating of this movie on IMDb, and I still don't understand why. The characters were completely original and vibrant, as was the style of the sets, wardrobe, lighting, and everything in this film. Go buy it today. You will not be sorry.@@@1 -You know when you're on the bus and someone decides to tell you their life-story, and you sit there with a pathetic smile on your face when all you really want to do is slap the fool and walk off? Well I had a similar sensation while watching this film. Okay, I did actually choose to go and see Aprile, and I knew about Nanni Moretti's taste for making himself the one and only star from Caro Diario, but after about half an hour of this latest installment from his memoirs I wanted to give Moretti the madre of all slaps. Caro Diario was funny, unusual, and at least a couple of other characters managed to get a word in edgeways. In Aprile, however, Moretti has exclusive rights to the dialogue, so that all you hear for an hour and a half is a high-pitched whine going on about how his politics are best, or what quirky piece of popular culture is tickling his fancy at the moment. He also finds time to slag off films that he doesn't like, something I thought was reserved for losers like me. Surely being in a position like his you'd think he'd try and make a point about cinema a little more intelligently than this. By making a proper film perhaps, one with some ideas and a decent structure, or maybe one that isn't completely dominated by his annoying voice. And when he started fawning over his newborn baby, I just wanted to go and be in the company of someone normal, preferably not a self-obsessed film director with a strange penchant for tacky music. The next time someone you don't know tries to tell you their life-story, give them a slap from me. Every blow will be a small victory in the fight against Morettiism.@@@0 -This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.

Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.

This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk.

!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!@@@1 -...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.@@@0 -Love it or loathe it, it's hard to not find Warren Beatty's take on "Dick Tracy," the 1990 film adaptation of Chester Gould's famous comic strip, anything short of a genre classic. Superhero films have been coming out of the woodwork in recent years, and may soon become a genre all on its own.

Beatty's film liberally uses Gould's source material to full effect, shooting in all six of the strip's primary colors, and thus giving this unique yet familiar world of trigger-happy mutant gangsters and loose, seductive women a lush visual style and tone.

It can be stated that the film's strong visual aesthetics drastically short-change the characters and their acting abilities, which I don't think can be any further from the truth.

"Dick Tracy" relishes in its look and ghastly characters, and Beatty himself, who plays the dogged and incorruptible detective of the title, is appropriately stoic and ready to bust the bad guys at any and all costs.

Other than the visual treats and Oscar-winning makeup, there is a plot, and Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino, deliciously over-the-top in an Oscar-nominated performance), seeks to eliminate Tracy in one well-planned move, but also seeks to gain control of all criminal action in the city by uniting all the feuding gangs under him.

Tracy, meanwhile, is juggling his relationship with Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), who as her name would have it, remains faithfully by his side and cares for The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), who eventually finds a father figure to look up to in our crime-busting hero. Tracy's fidelity to Tess is tested by the tempting advances of Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), who is also Big Boy's main squeeze. At the same time that all of this is going down, things become heated when a new criminal figure arrives in town, and decides to play both sides against the middle.

The performances are good, as Beatty's focus on the strained and romantic relationships between each of the leads becomes the center of the material, as opposed to just concentrating on pointless action and special effects. Pacino freely chews up the scenery in a role that's truly standout from the rest.

"Dick Tracy" is one of the best and most overlooked of the comic book movie genre. I think that if Chester Gould was still alive, he would be proud of Warren Beatty's take on his beloved crime-fighting detective.

8/10@@@1 -Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.

Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.)

'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.

The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...

Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.

At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.

This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend.@@@0 -Usually, when we use the word "escapist", we mean it negatively; Warren Beatty's big screen version of "Dick Tracy" proves that "escapist" can be good. This is truly one entertaining movie. As the eponymous, yellow-clad, fearless title character, Beatty creates a detective to whom we can all relate: ready for action, but not without his weaknesses.

From there, the rest of characters are almost a world unto themselves. Tess Truehart (Glenne Headly) is as glamorous as one would expect the hubby of any crime fighter to be; Breathless Mahoney (Madonna) is possibly the most perplexing person imaginable; Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) is the average villain: ruthless but cool. Other characters include the speech-challenged Mumbles (Dustin Hoffman), the over-musical 88 Keys (Mandy Patinkin), and The Kid (Charlie Korsmo). Charles Durning, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, Estelle Parsons, Catherine O'Hara, Seymour Cassel, Paul Sorvino and Kathy Bates also star.

Oh, wait a minute. I haven't even explained the plot! The plot involves Tracy trying - and failing so far - to find some way to nab Big Boy. Simultaneously, some very bizarre events have been going on in town, the answers to which may or may not be closer than everyone thinks.

Of course, the main thing about this movie is that it's fun to watch. If Warren Beatty was having trouble acting his age, then he made good use of that here. "Dick Tracy" is one cool movie.@@@1 -Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.

WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.

I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!@@@0 -At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice.@@@1 +First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.

This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.

What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers.@@@1 +You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.

A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.

I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...

umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go.@@@0 +OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.@@@1 +While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.

My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.

I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.@@@0 +I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.@@@1 +I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!

However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.

1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.@@@0 +Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.

The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.

The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.

Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.@@@1 +This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.

Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.

As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough.@@@0 +

I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.@@@1 +A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.@@@0 +I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(@@@1 +TYSON

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King!@@@0 +I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids!@@@1 +As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.

The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)@@@0 +I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard.@@@1 +Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western – which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch – the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise – and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame.@@@0 +The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.@@@1 +This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.

The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.

Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.

The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.

There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.

It's an OK film but instantly forgettable.@@@0 +This film made John Glover a star. Alan Raimy is one of the most compelling character that I have ever seen on film. And I mean that sport.@@@1 +Fairly good movie, but not a true story.

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?

Jens@@@0 +Some of the acknowledged Altman "masterpieces" seem sadder to me now. Maybe it's me. Like the last reviewer, I even like this "lesser" Altman (shown recently on FMC), although I don't think he was aiming at a wide audience. Organization politics as a "microcosm" for public campaigns. Some of this satirical "docudrama" is now dated, like Dick Cavett watching the Tonight Show, but I found much of the dialog funny and insightful (e.g. "You are for real. That means you're no threat to anyone"). The story isn't "profound," but I liked it. And the performances are funny, especially Cavett (as "himself"), Lauren Bacall as an aging conservative figurehead, Glenda Jackson (who actually became a member of Parliament) as a left wing ideologue (in the opening scene lecturing someone dressed as a carrot on the sanctity of politics), and Carol Burnett as a basket case. All in the inimitable Altman style, although maybe not quite as inimitable as usual. But pretty inimitable.@@@1 +A dreary and pointless bit of fluff (bloody fluff, but fluff). Badly scripted, with inane and wooden dialogue. You do not care if the characters (indeed, even if the actors themselves) live or die. Little grace or charm, little action, little point to the whole thing. Perhaps some of the set and setting will interest--those gaps between the boards of all the buildings may be true to the way life was lived. The framework encounter is unnecessary and distracting, and the Hoppalong Cassidy character himself is both boring and inept.@@@0 +Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.@@@1 +This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.@@@0 +Life's going not to badly for Harry Mitchell, he's an ex-air force major (plus nifty little pension I imagine), who's raking in the cash for a patent he's developed (fusing titanium and steel via explosive process, creating super metal fit for NASA), and his wife of twenty-odd years has kept herself in pretty good nick. He's got a nice little pad in LA. I like to see visions of the 80s consumer dream, and you get a good slice here, what with the restored silver Jag (a series 1 E-type roadster) for him, and the gorgeous antique dolls house for her (as well as I'm sure other trinkets and boys toys). There's always got to be more though hasn't there? So Harry let's himself get caught up in some romantic shenanigans (you're only as old as the woman you're feeling). As in many films noir, one mistake, in an otherwise blotch-less life, leads to a downwards arc for Harry.

Three blackmailers leech onto him. These are where the value are for me, great character actors playing very believable roles. Bobby Shy (played by Clarence Williams III) is a black ex-con who is capable of performing incredible psychopathic acts in order to avoid jail and punish double-crossers. He's reminiscent of Pluto, the vicious black ex-con psychopath from Carl Franklin's well-regarded neo-noir "One False Move" (1992). There's a similar character motivation I believe. Both men have had enough of the man, and well pretty much everyone, in extremis. Robert Trebor plays Leo Franks, a fat lily-livered pansy who runs a nudie parlour where gents can photograph nude models at $25 for half an hour, and $50 for a whole hour (did anyone else guffaw at the lack of discount?). He's in over his head, and it's great to watch Trebor acting when Leo starts to feel the heat, believable breakdown. John Glover wins as Alan Raimy, who is the brains of the plot, an actually brilliant man who becomes a pornographer and turns to a life of crime out of sheer sociopathic ennui. He's a sexual sadist and does a few particularly unpleasant things during the movie, including what I believe is a pretty well-implied rape (pay attention to his RAP sheet readout, it's easily missed, and read between the lines for the motel scene with "Slim").

In common with One False Move, though not exclusively, I think the real impact of the movie is in the unusually communicative scenes of violence.

So far so good but I think there's a real problem with the film. Harry Mitchell is told at one point that he has his "tit in the wringer". My problem is that Harry Mitchell is played by Roy Scheider. Roy Scheider protagonists never lose, they're self-sure and smooth, but not in an annoying way. I feel I'm being asked to believe that his character is in peril, the movie relies on this for dramatic tension; however I didn't believe it. For me it's like being asked to believe that Sandra Bullock's character is going to end up sleeping alone by the end of a romantic drama, or Stephen Seagal's character is going to get taken down by the baddies (did actually happen in one movie but was done deliberately for shock value). Roy Scheider doesn't convince as an adulterer either, you don't feel any annoyance with him at all, his character is Teflon-coated.

It also felt like a movie that took some cuts. At 110 minutes it still feels underdeveloped: Harry's wife, Ann Margaret, is pretty much a cardboard cutout, an extension of Harry, her back story as a politician running for office receives scant attention. The effect that the affair has on Harry's marriage isn't properly communicated. This could be a Frankenheimer problem, he's not known for character development. I never felt that Harry was dealing with little more than an overtly annoying and erroneous tax claim from the IRS.

There is good sleazy violent noir content in this film, but I feel that to be in the excellent bracket that the casting of Harry could have been done better (no disrespect to the great Roy Scheider). The film felt short, even with the long running time, and I think could have taken some more fleshing out.

But you really can't forget the sleaze, like the deliciously pervy scene of Harry taking photos of Doreen in the nudie parlour.@@@1 +Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.@@@0 +52-Pick Up never got the respect it should have. It works on many levels, and has a complicated but followable plot. The actors involved give some of their finest performances. Ann-Margret, Roy Scheider, and John Glover are perfectly cast and provide deep character portrayals. Notable too are Vanity, who should have parlayed this into a serious acting career given the unexpected ability she shows, and Kelly Preston, who's character will haunt you for a few days. Anyone who likes action combined with a gritty complicated story will enjoy this.@@@1 +When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.@@@0 +This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.@@@1 +If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.@@@0 +This slick and gritty film consistently delivers. It's one of Frankenheimer's best and most underrated films and it's easily the best Elmore Leonard adaptation to date (and if you are scratching your head thinking "but I loved GET SHORTY" you need to be punched in the face). In my opinion, no one captures the "feel" for Leonard's characters better then John Glover in 52 PICK-UP. The relocation of the story from Detroit (novel) to Hollywood (film) elevates the story's sleaze factor to amazing heights. Be a man, have a few beers and watch this movie. For reference purposes my favorite Leonard books are: Swag, Rum Punch, Cat Chaser, City Primeval, and 52 Pick-Up. My favorite Frankenheimer films include SECONDS and THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I also have a real special place in my cold, movie heart for DEAD BANG and BLACK Sunday.@@@1 +This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.@@@0 +I've always liked this John Frankenheimer film. Good script by Elmore Leonard and the main reason this wasn't just another thriller is because of Frankenheimer. His taut direction and attention to little details make all the difference, he even hired porn star Ron Jeremy as a consultant! You can make a case that its the last good film Roy Scheider made. I've always said that Robert Trebor gave just a terrific performance. Clarence Williams III got all the publicity with his scary performance and he's excellent also but I really thought Trebor stood out. Frankenheimer may not be as proud of this film as others but it is an effective thriller full of blackmail, murder, sex, drugs, and real porno actors appear in sleazy parts. What can you say about a film that has Ann Margaret being shot up with drugs and raped? A guilty pleasure to say the least. Vanity has a real sleazy role and a very young Kelly Preston makes an early appearance. A classic exploitive thriller that shouldn't be forgotten.@@@1 +Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !@@@0 +Based on Elmore Leonard, this is a violent and intelligent action film. The story: a business man is blackmailed by some 3 criminals. Roy Schieder does great job as the leading character and special credit's got to go to John Glover who plays sort of a naughty psychopath. I must mention that the villains characters are very complex and interesting - something that is very rare for an action film. also features some beautiful and sexy women - most notable are Kelly Preston as the young bate for Schieder's character. Vanity gives a very good performance and appearance as the hooker who is connected with the three blackmailers. I'm glad to say that Ann-Margaret still hasn't lost it - this lady is a true babe. Don't look at the rate of this film. I really don't know what the public and some critics have against this film but my suggestion is to ignore them and watch this truly gripping and under-rated film. You will enjoy it, that's a promise. Recommended A+.@@@1 +I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.

But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.

Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.

It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.

After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.

I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.@@@0 +Spoilers!

From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!

If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?

After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up.

I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"

This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place.

Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty.

9 of 10 stars.

So sayeth the Hound.

Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!@@@1 +This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.

One and half stars.@@@0 +Brendan Filone is the absolute best character in The Sopranos. he died by getting shot in the eye. This was the best and well orchestrated scene ever in the Sopranos. Brendan Filone is too good. Brendan Filone shall haunt Uncle Junior in his dreams until Uncle Junior can't take it anymore. Brendan Filone is the best character. Brendan Filone was killed in episode # 3, Denial, anger, acceptance. But his legacy will live on forever. Brendan Filone is the best character on Sopranos! Brendan Filone is the best character ever. I recommend this show to anyone who likes Drama and wants to see good death scenes and great directing and producing, because it doesn't get any better than this series. Brendan Filone is the best.@@@1 +Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the "film makers were then attacked" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.

Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by "the film makers were attacked" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said "Someone should beat those two kids up." The picture on the cover, "the chase" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.

I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's "Roger & Me", but if "Roger & Me" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, "Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.

Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, "HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!".

Morgan "Please Like Me" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.

Avoid like the plague.@@@0 +Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.

All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.

Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context.@@@1 +The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.

In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.

One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.

But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.

No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.

I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.@@@0 +Having only seen two of his pictures previously, I've come to terms with Altman. Before, though, I always labeled his style of film-making "boring." You just have to be in the right mind to appreciate his crazy genius.

"HealtH" is fairly underrated, and very questionably out of print. In fact, I don't think it's ever even been issued to VHS. Why is that? When all of these crappy films get DVD releases daily, this one is left behind for no good reason? Honestly, I had no real problems with this film. It was, for the most part, consistently amusing and funny. Almost all of the scenes are mysteriously interesting for some reason, be it the wonderful dialogue or the subtle performances. There is real skill here.

And Paul Dooley's stint on the bottom of the pool halfway through is fascinating.

If you can, try to find a copy of this forgotten little gem. It's not perfect, but it's much better than most of the sludge out there getting DVD releases. Hell, I'd be happy with a nice VHS copy of this thing.

It's often on the Fox Movie Channel, though, so look out for it.@@@1 +This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.@@@0 +This is the definite Lars von Trier Movie, my favorite, I rank it higher than "Breaking the waves" or the latest "Dancer in the Dark"... I simply love the beauty of the picture...the framing is so original; acting is wonderful, A MUST SEE.@@@1 +I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.

There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.

Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.

'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.

Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.

And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.

Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.

To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.

I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.

A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.@@@0 +This is my favorite show. I think it is utterly brilliant. Thanks to David Chase for bringing this into my life.

Season 1

1. The Sopranos: 5/5

2. 46 Long: 4.5/5

3. Denial, Anger, Acceptance: 5/5

4. Meadowlands: 4/5

5. College:

6. Pax Soprana: 5/5

7. Down Neck: 4.5/5

8. The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti: 5/5

9. Boca: 4.5/5

10. A Hit Is a Hit: 3.5/5

11. Nobody Knows Anything: 5/5

12. Isabella: 5/5

13. I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano: 5/5@@@1 +Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.

God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted@@@0 +The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......@@@1 +I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering – literally – depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.@@@0 +Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.@@@1 +I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it.@@@0 +"The Godfather" of television, but aside from it's acclaim and mobster characters, the two are nothing alike. Tony Soprano is forced to go to a psychiatrist after a series of panic attacks. His psychiatrist learns that Tony is actually part of two families -- in one family he is a loving father yet not-so-perfect-husband, and in the other family he is a ruthless wiseguy. After analysis, Dr. Melfi concludes that Tony's problems actually derive from his mother Livia, who's suspected to have borderline-personality disorder. Gandolfini is rightfully praised as the main character; yet Bracco and Marchand aren't nearly as recognized for their equally and talented performances as the psychiatrist and mother, respectively. Falco, Imperioli and DeMatteo are acclaimed for their brilliant supporting roles. Van Zandt (from the E-Street Band) plays his first and only role as Tony's best friend, and is quite convincing and latching. Chianese, the only recurring actor to have actually appeared in a Godfather film, plays Tony's uncle and on-and-off nemesis. Many fans also enjoyed characters played by Pastore, Ventimiglia, Curatola, Proval, Pantoliano, Lip, Sciorra and Buscemi. Tony's children are "okay" but not notable (with the exception of Iler's stunning performance in the third-to-last episode, "The Second Coming"); Sirico and Schirripa are unconvincing and over-the-top, but the show is too strong for them to hold it back. Even as the show continues for over six season, it ceases to have a dull or predictable moment.

**** (out of four)@@@1 +OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest...@@@0 +As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.@@@1 +I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.

I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.

The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.

The special effects are bad.

The acting is bad.

The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.

I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.

I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.

And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.@@@0 +Though "The Sopranos" is yet another gift from the megahit "The Godfather" and sequels, which dramatized and to a certain extent glamorized the mafia, "The Sopranos" takes another tack. No suited up, classy mobsters here with homes in Lake Tahoe and stakes in Vegas casinos - these guys are goombahs, with a front of waste management, who deal with things that fall off the back of trucks, topless bars, protection money - in short, what the neighborhood mobs were all about.

Colorful characters dominate this series, which doesn't hold back on the sex and graphic violence. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mob head with a wife and two children, living in New Jersey, who suffers from panic attacks as he tries to balance his biological family with his mafia one. To get to the bottom of his attacks, he sees a psychiatrist, Jennifer Melfi (Lorraine Bracco), who is afraid of him and yet attracted to him at the same time. Tony's henchman - Paulie, his nephew Christopher, his Uncle Junior (the titular head of the mob), his good friend Pussy - are all fully fleshed-out characters.

As we learn going through the series, there are enemies not only from without, but from within, and one of those enemies includes Tony's sickly but horrible mother (Nancy Marchand), who convinces Junior that Tony is a danger to him. Tony's sister Janice, meanwhile, is searching for money in her mother's house with a stethoscope and a Geiger counter. Tony has mistress problems, and a wife (Edie Falco) who puts up with a lot because she loves him, all the while keeping ties to her Catholic religion. "The church frowns on divorce," she tells one woman contemplating a split. "Let the Pope live with him," is the response. As far as Tony's mistress problems, his psychiatrist points out that Tony is attracted to demanding women for whom nothing is ever enough, and asks him if it sounds familiar. Yeah, it sounds like his mother.

I'm of Italian descent, and yes, I'm sick of Italians being shown in a negative light and everyone assuming all Italians are mobsters. Yet you can't help liking this show, which is a constant reminder of our culture. (Thanksgiving, it's pointed out, isn't turkey and sweet potato pie - it's the antipasto, the manicotti, the meatballs and escarole, and then the bird!) Not to mention, the right-on pronunciation of words like melenzana (mullinyan), escarole (scarole), manicotti (manigot) etc. The only un-Italian thing about Tony is that he doesn't have a finished basement, something unheard of in the rest of my family (except my parents never had one either).

The standouts in this show are Gandolfini, as a ruthless gangster on antidepressants, Falco, who is brilliant as his wife, and Bracco as the tortured Jennifer. But everyone is excellent. If you can take the violence and the language, this is a great show, an unrelenting portrait of New Jersey mob life.@@@1 +IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...@@@0 +The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.

Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.

James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.

Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.

The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.

Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).

Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit.@@@1 +I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.

This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.

The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong.

The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away.@@@0 +The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.

The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it...@@@1 +This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.@@@0 +Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.

Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!

I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.@@@1 +Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.

The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.

As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.

In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!@@@0 +The Sopranos stands out as an airtight, dynamic exploration of American life, and how the American experience is shaped and defined by money. By setting the story in the milieu of the underworld, David Chase eliminates all barriers to a grunt, low to the ground and outright mean deconstruction of the post-modern era.

Every character represents a facet of American industry. Tony Soprano exemplifies the beleaguered working stiff, torn between familial duty and a need to keep his "business" on an even keel. The convergence of these two things is the imperative that keeps the story moving forward. The characters of Christopher, Paulie, and Bobby reflect the loyal - but self-serving underlings present in every enterprise, who are trusted out of necessity rather than merit. With the character of Ralph, Joe Pantoliano essays a brilliant interpretation of the charismatic psychopath, a twisted businessman who's flourishes of violence are tragically outweighed by his stunning earning power. And Dominic Chianese is the ultimate symbol of the antiquated old-guard, which maintains power through established relationships and the need of the up- and-comers to deflect blame.

Though abrasive and occasionally disturbing, The Sopranos has earned its place as the ultimate TV drama.

PS A good companion piece to Chase's series would be The Shield, another violent drama that manages to make the ugliest of characters interesting.@@@1 +I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!

I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)

==Here comes spoilers==

The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!@@@0 +I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie.@@@1 +One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.

If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?

I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.@@@0 +I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.

I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).

Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....

Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).@@@1 +I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.@@@0 +The Sopranos is perhaps the most mind-opening series you could possibly ever want to watch. It's smart, it's quirky, it's funny - and it carries the mafia genre so well that most people can't resist watching. The best aspect of this show is the overwhelming realism of the characters, set in the subterranean world of the New York crime families. For most of the time, you really don't know whether the wise guys will stab someone in the back, or buy them lunch.

Further adding to the realistic approach of the characters in this show is the depth of their personalities - These are dangerous men, most of them murderers, but by God if you don't love them too. I've laughed at their wisecracks, been torn when they've made err in judgement, and felt scared at the sheer ruthlessness of a serious criminal.

The suburban setting of New Jersey is absolutely perfect for this show's subtext - people aren't always as they seem, and the stark contrast between humdrum and the actions taken by these seemingly petty criminals weigh up to even the odds.

If you haven't already, you most definitely should.@@@1 +Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.

The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.

The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.

***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.

1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can.@@@0 +Take a pinch of GOODFELLAS, mix it with THE GODFATHER, add some Roman mythology and plenty of lowbrow comedy, and you have THE SOPRANOS, about a mob clan operating out of northern New Jersey. It's almost as entertaining as pro wrestling. I am not the biggest fan of this show, but I do admire James Gandolfini's very complicated Tony Soprano, a psychopath with an occasional glimmer of conscience. I also have come to admire te contributions of folks like gravel-voiced Dom Chianese as the bewildered but murderous Uncle Junior, silver-haired Tony Sirico as the perpetually perplexed Paulie and the very beautiful Edie Falco as the duplicitous, tough-as-nails Carmela Soprano. The violence is sudden and graphic, the body count steadily climbs each season, but it is often the small moments that matter most here. Watch Paulie and Tony's nephew Christopher (Michael Imperioli late of LAW & ORDER) as they get lost in the Pine Barrens and sit out a bitter cold night in an abandoned trruck, both convinced they've had it.@@@1 +Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.

The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.

The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.

Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive.@@@0 +I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a "10"), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.@@@1 +I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.@@@0 +It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......

From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!

While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)

But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?

Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.

All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled.@@@1 +I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.@@@0 +I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1@@@1 +One previous reviewer called this film "pure visual joy" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. "High Art" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since "Seven". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty?@@@0 +"The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4@@@1 +This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.@@@0 +Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.@@@1 +Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.

Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities.

The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.

Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy".

This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.

Give me Smiley any day.@@@0 +The "gangster" genre is now a worn subject one that is too often subjected to parody. In retrospect the series is a culmination of previous clichés that have been utilized in it's genre, thankfully the writers have advanced upon this flaw by creating a realism which has been applied to it. The Sopranos is an epic crime saga that illustrates it's content with psychological depth that is characterized with subtle nuance, humor and unvarnished violence. The key protagonist Tony Soprano is perceived as a perilous general bereft of fear and moral values by his crew ,however, Tony is of two persona's one which is bestial while the other is conflicted with guilt and resent. With out any inhibitions or contradictions I still adamantly believe that The Sopranos has the finest ensemble cast of recent memory. All things considered I could make an elaborate statement on the series, but I won't. If ever there is a visual dictionary in global consumerism search for these definitions vital, ambiguous, unrelenting, epic, uncompromising and the sopranos shattered visage will be smiling right back at you.@@@1 +This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police.

Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.

Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity@@@0 +There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV@@@1 +Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building.@@@0 +This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now.@@@1 +The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.@@@0 +Wow. I LOVED the whole series, and am shocked at comments by people who thought it ended badly. Perhaps it waffled a bit in seasons 4 & 5, while remaining better than anything else on television. But 6 and particularly 6b were beautiful permutations on the themes developed in the more muscular first three seasons.

6B started with such a sombre mood and Janice's always keen insight into the family angst - that doom-filled line about knowing Tony's penchant for sitting and staring. Anyone who missed the implications of that for the rest of the series does not know Tony. Melfi's discomfort over the psychiatric study and its references to the sociopath's self-deluding sentimentality for pets and animals goes back to the first episodes of the series, say, with Tony's panic attack over the ducks leaving his pool and resonates with Phil's "wave bye-bye" line to his grandchildren before the coup de grace of the final episode (not to get into Chase's dark humour).

I could go on and on, but I'll just add that I thought the final show - starting with the opening strains of Vanilla Fudge to supply the ironic foreshadow ("You Keep Me Hangin' On") to the terminal moments where Tony fades back into complacency with his family in tow or blasts apart like AJ's SUV or Phil's head were, utterly, utterly PERFECT. The best TV ever.

Pretty good in a dying medium pathologically supplying the "jack-off fantasies" AJ derides (and then into which he promptly subsides). A tip of the pork pie to Mr. Chase.@@@1 +You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".

The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.

The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").

In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.

Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.

I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek.@@@0 +As a guy who has seen all the seasons, I can say that JG constantly surprises me. I mean, after you saw him shifting from laughter to paranoia instantly throughout the seasons and after every little gesture of his made u believe he is a gangster, u thought to yourself: OK he is a good actor and he can get into a gangster's skin. But after seeing him opening his eyes and struggling for his life, I mean I could almost feel the pain he "made" us believe he was going through. I was so touched by his performance that I immediately thought at Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. These guys were definitely the best of their generations and even more. But nowadays they are either old or dead (Brando) and it's OK that they make less movies and their performances are "lighter" than they used to be. I can't wait to see Gandolfini in other movies where he delivers a totally different role. Can u recommend me some of his older movies where he gives a memorable performance?@@@1 +I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.

It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...

This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.

Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.

This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!@@@0 +When we started watching this series on cable, I had no idea how addictive it would be. Even when you hate a character, you hold back because they are so beautifully developed, you can almost understand why they react to frustration, fear, greed or temptation the way they do. It's almost as if the viewer is experiencing one of Christopher's learning curves.

I can't understand why Adriana would put up with Christopher's abuse of her, verbally, physically and emotionally, but I just have to read the newspaper to see how many women can and do tolerate such behavior. Carmella has a dream house, endless supply of expensive things, but I'm sure she would give it up for a loving and faithful husband - or maybe not. That's why I watch.

It doesn't matter how many times you watch an episode, you can find something you missed the first five times. We even watch episodes out of sequence (watch season 1 on late night with commercials but all the language, A&E with language censored, reruns on the Movie Network) - whenever they're on, we're there. We've been totally spoiled now.

I also love the Malaprop's. "An albacore around my neck" is my favorite of Johnny Boy. When these jewels have entered our family vocabulary, it is a sign that I should get a life. I will when the series ends, and I have collected all the DVD's, and put the collection in my will.@@@1 +I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").

Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.@@@0 +Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)

I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.

Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading.@@@1 +Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.

Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.

What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.

The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.@@@0 +THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007)

Number 1 - Television Show of all Time

Everyone thought this would be a stupid thing that wouldn't go past a pilot episode. The Sopranos has become a cultural phenomenon and universally agreed as one of the greatest television shows of all time.

James Gandolfini plays the enigmatic New Jersey crime boss, Tony Soprano, accompanied by a stellar cast. Edie Falco is superb as the worrying, loving upper-middle class mother; Tony Sirico is tremendous as a superstitious, greying consiglieri who is often very funny.

While the show has often been criticised for the negative stereotype of Italian-Americans as mafiosi, and to an extent this is undeniable, I can see so many positives from the show. The portrayal of strong family values, friendships, love and compassion; could this be present in a coarse television show about gangsters? Yes. Furthermore, other burning issues are discussed such as terrorism, social inequality and injustice, homosexuality, drugs etc. This is no shallow, dull show about tough guys and violence. It has so much more. Many of the issues we see on the show are very real.

The writing which has been pretty much great has infused so successfully current issues and managed to imbred them within the characters' lives, which makes the whole thing more interesting.

Credit must go to David Chase who has created an excellent television treasure and to James Gandolfini, for envisioning, television's most complex and enigmatic character.

Simply exceptional.

10/10@@@1 +I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.

First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all.

*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*

Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.@@@0 +What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? "The Sopranos" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.@@@1 +Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.

This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.

The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me.@@@0 +The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.

Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.

Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.

The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.

The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.

With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined.@@@1 +Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.@@@0 +I love MIDNIGHT COWBOY and have it in my video collection as it is a favorite of mine. What is interesting to me is how when MIDNIGHT COWBOY came out in 1969, it was so shocking to viewers that it was rated X. Of course, at that time X meant Maturity. Since I was only two years old at the time of the movie's release, it is hard for me to imagine just how shocked viewers were back then. However, when I try to take into account that many of the topics covered in the film, which included prostitution (the title itself was slang for a male prostitute); homosexuality; loneliness; physical (and to some extent emotional as well) abuse and drugs are hard for many people to talk about to this day, I can begin to get a sense of what viewers of this movie thought back on its release. It is worth noting that in the 1970's, MIDNIGHT COWBOY was downgraded to an R rating and even though it is still rated R, some of the scenes could almost be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

I want to briefly give a synopsis of the plot although it is probably known to almost anyone who has heard of the movie. Jon Voight plays a young man named Joe Buck from Texas who decides that he can make it big as a male hustler in New York City escorting rich women. He emulates cowboy actors like Roy Rogers by wearing a cowboy outfit thinking that that will impress women. After being rejected by all the women he has come across, he meets a sleazy con-man named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo who is played by Dustin Hoffman. Ratso convinces Joe that he can make all kinds of money if he has a manager. Once again, Joe is conned and before long is homeless. However, Joe comes across Ratso and is invited to stay in a dilapidated apartment. Without giving away much more of the plot, I want to say that the remainder of the movie deals with Joe and Ratso as they try to help one another in an attempt to fulfill their dreams. I.E. Joe making it as a gigolo and Ratso going down to Florida where he thinks he can regain his health.

I want to make some comments about the movie itself. First of all, the acting is excellent, especially the leads. Although the movie is really very sad from the beginning to the end, there are some classic scenes. In fact, there are some scenes that while they are not intended to be funny, I find them amusing. For example, there is the classic scene where Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight are walking down a city street and a cab practically runs them over. Dustin Hoffman bangs on the cab and says "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!" I get a kick out of that scene because it is so typical of New York City where so many people are in a hurry. Another scene that comes to mind is the scene where Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) sends Joe (Jon Voight) to a guy named O'Daniel. What is amusing is that at first, we think O'Daniel is there to recruit gigolos and can see why Joe is getting so excited but then we begin to realize that O'Daniel is nothing but a religious nut. In addition to the two scenes I mentioned, I love the scene where Ratso and Joe are arguing in their apartment when Ratso says to Joe that his cowboy outfit only attracts homosexuals and Joe says in self-defense "John Wayne! You gonna tell me he's a fag!" What I like is the delivery in that scene.

I would say that even though MIDNIGHT COWBOY was set in the late '60's, much of it rings true today. That's because although the area around 42nd Street in New York has been cleaned up in the form of Disneyfication in the last several years, homelessness is still just as prevalent there now as it was 40 years ago. Also, many people have unrealistic dreams of how they are going to strike it big only to have their dreams smashed as was the case with the Jon Voight character. One thing that impresses me about Jon Voight's character is how he is a survivor and I felt that at the end of the movie, he had matured a great deal and that Ratso (Dustin Hoffman's character) was a good influence on him.

In conclusion, I want to say that I suggest that when watching this movie, one should watch it at least a couple of times because there are so many things that go on. For example, there are a bunch of flashback and dream sequences that made more sense to me after a couple of viewings. Also, what I find interesting is that there is a lot in this movie that is left to interpretation such as what really happened with Joe Buck (Jon Voight's character) and the people who were in his life in Texas. Even the ending, while I don't want to give it away for those who have not seen the movie, is rather open-ended.@@@1 +I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.

We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.

Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).

I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.

... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.@@@0 +First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life.@@@1 +As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.@@@0 +I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.

The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.

The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.

Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.

It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.

Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.

All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it@@@1 +Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.

The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life.@@@0 +This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.

As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.

Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as "Michael J Fox" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.

What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.

The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same.@@@1 +I enjoy watching western films but this movie takes the biscuit. The script and dialogue is laughable. The acting was awful, where did they get them from? Music was OK i have to say. Luckily i didn't buy or rent the movie but its now disposed of.

I was geared up at the beginning when the stranger (martin sheen) started to tell his story. I have to admit i did enjoy the confrontation between Hopalong and Tex where Hopalong shot Tex's finger off and told him to practise for 40 years to reach his league. But thats where it all went pear shaped thereafter. I had to watch the whole film in the hope that it would get better, never did.@@@0 +Jon Voight is brilliant in Midnight Cowboy, but Hoffman's performance, though reminiscent of his later turn in Rainman, is the kind of performance that keeps me watching movies. As a portrayal of a New York character, only Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Bill Butcher in Gangs of New York comes to mind as comparable, and Day doesn't give his character the emotional depth that Hoffman gives Ratso.

It's typical of Hoffman's way of acting that the actor we tend to identify most with Midnight Cowboy is Voight. I think Hoffman is one of the 4 or 5 best actors in the history of film at playing off the people around him in such a way that he raises their performances far above their normal levels.

Voight's Buck is so naive that he would float out of the film altogether, except that Ratso pulls him down - pulls him down, but also teaches him, a lot about how to survive and, more importantly, how to live.

Midnight Cowboy is a movie about escape that turns into a movie about finding yourself. I think that, as gritty a movie as it is, it has a very beautiful message, that no matter how much a loser you might be (Ratso clearly defines "loser"), if you can find a way to be true to yourself, you are in possession of the secret of life, and you might even be able to share that insight with someone else.

I can't help but compare Midnight Cowboy to Klute, from a few years later, which I think is more like a movie about finding yourself that turns into a movie about escape.@@@1 +Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?

For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?…. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.

Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.

Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.

In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.@@@0 +I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.

The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.

I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason.@@@1 +First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.

Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.

I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.

4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.@@@0 +Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.

PROS:

-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes!

-Beautiful score

-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today

-Fantastic and fast editing job

CONS:

-For mature audiences only

-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.@@@1 +A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."

Lame.

Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.

The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.

One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.

This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.@@@0 +Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another "user" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about "Midnight Cowboy" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of "Midnight Cowboy". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The "trivia" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of "Ratzo" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the "users" thought "Joe Buck" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the "users" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of "Midnight Cowboy" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as "Deliverance". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between "Ratzo" and "Joe" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. "Joe's" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. "The party" ? - attend some of the "raves" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking "this isn't real", look at today's "ladies" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality "Joe" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. "Joe" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps "only in America" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......@@@1 +Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.@@@0 +Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.

'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.

The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.

Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.

While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.

Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.

'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.

*** ½ out of 4@@@1 +This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee.@@@0 +What makes Midnight Cowboy into a successful movie is the way in which Joe Buck becomes bonded to Ratso Rizzo through a series of hardships that affect them both. There really aren't many glimpses of hope in this film for either character, but the hard realities that beset them both give the film its own type of optimism that these men can at least find humanity within each other.

This film features Jon Voight's finest performance and probably Dustin Hoffman's as well. The rest of the cast is made up of unknowns, though it is rounded out by a fine series of character actors, including the cowpoke on the bus at the start of the film. Also, for those interested, Andy Warhol's apprentice Paul Morrissey shows up briefly during the party scene.

If you haven't seen this movie, it is essential. Check it out.@@@1 +What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.

One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.@@@0 +"Midnight Cowboy" is one of those films thats been proclaimed a masterpiece with good reason - it really is one of the finest films ever made in America. Its both artistically valid yet entirely accessible and commercial. No wonder it was a huge success when initially released. But be warned, its also one of the most heartbreaking films ever made. The characters are memorable, well-developed, and ultimately tragic. The filmmakers should be applauded for not giving us the Hollywood ending, something which was basically mandatory by the 80s. Still, this is why I treasure the years of 1967 to 1977 for American film. Its a time when well-made, innovative, and most of all bleak films could be made with the big budgets that Hollywood could offer. All this was over by the time "Star Wars" was released.

The direction by John Schlesinger makes the material work. It combines a simplistic style with some experimental editing. Unlike many other films featuring these psychedelic effects, "Midnight Cowboy" has aged quite well. Its still as powerful now as it was when initially released. The acting however is what makes this a masterpiece. The characters' backgrounds are never fully explained, but the performances make them completely developed. Both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely memorable and sympathetic (despite their sometimes reprehensible actions). Plus, being a fan of vintage exploitation films, I loved the scenes set on the infamously sleazy 42nd street. "Midnight Cowboy" is close to being perfect and one of the most powerful films ever made. (10/10)@@@1 +This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.

Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.

Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone.@@@1 +All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.

This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.

0 out of 10!@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.@@@1 +Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.@@@0 +Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.

A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the "end of innocence" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.

JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend "Ratzo" dreams of living in.

But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting "Midnight Cowboy" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.

Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life.@@@1 +There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.@@@0 +Sandra Bernhard is quite a character, and certainly one of the funniest women on earth. She began as a stand-up comedienne in the 1970s, but her big break came in 1983 when she starred opposite Jerry Lewis and Robert De Niro in Scorsese's underrated masterpiece, "The King of Comedy". Her film career never quite took off, though. She did make a couple of odd but entertaining pictures, such as "Dallas Doll" (1994) or "Dinner Rush" (2000), but the most amazing parts were those she created for herself.

"Without You I'm Nothing" is undoubtedly her best effort. It's an adaptation of her smash-hit off-Broadway show which made her a superstar – and Madonna's best friend for about four years. In ten perfectly choreographed and staged scenes, Sandra turns from Nina Simone to Diana Ross, talks about her childhood, Andy Warhol and San Francisco and performs songs made famous by Burt Bacharach, Prince, or Sylvester. Director John Boskovich got Sandra to do a 90-minute tour-de-force performance that's both sexy and uniquely funny. If you are a Bernhard fan, you can't miss out this film; it's a tribute as well to her (weird) beauty as to her extremely unconventional talent as a comedienne. And it has influenced filmmakers in their work – "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", for instance, would look a lot different if "Without You I'm Nothing" didn't exist.@@@1 +Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!

This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!

One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!@@@0 +John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy' is perhaps most notable for being the only X-rated film in Academy history to receive the Oscar for Best Picture. This was certainly how I first came to hear of it, and, to be completely honest, I didn't really expect much of the film. This is not to say that I thought it would be horrible, but somehow I didn't consider it the sort of movie that I would enjoy watching. This is one reason why you should never trust your own instincts on such manners – a remarkable combination of stellar acting, ambitious directing and a memorable soundtrack ("Everybody's talking' at me, I don't hear a word they're sayin'") make this film one of the finest explorations of life, naivety and friendship ever released.

Young Joe Buck (then-newcomer Jon Voight), dressed proudly as a rodeo cowboy, travels from Texas to New York to seek a new life as a hustler, a male prostitute. Women, however, do not seem to be willing to pay money for his services, and Joe faces living in extreme poverty as his supply of money begins to dry up. During these exploits, Joe comes to meet Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly crippled swindler who initially tries to con Joe out of all his money. When they come to realise that they are both in the same predicament, Ratso offers Joe a place to stay, and, working together, they attempt to make (largely dishonest) lives for themselves in the cold, gritty metropolis of New York.

Joe had convinced himself that New York women would be more than willing to pay for sex; however, his first such business venture ends with him guiltily paying the woman (Sylvia Miles) twenty dollars. Though he might consider himself to be somewhat intelligent, Ratso is just as naïve as Joe. Ratso, with his painful limp and hacking cough, is always assuring himself that, if only he could travel to the warmth of Miami, somehow everything would be all right. This misguided expectation that things will get better so easily is quite reminiscent of Lennie and George of John Steinbeck's classic novel, 'Of Mice and Men.'

Shot largely on the streets of New York, 'Midnight Cowboy' is a grittily-realistic look at life in the slums. Watching the film, we can almost feel ourselves inside Ratso's squalid, unheated residence, our joints stiff from the aching winter cold. The acting certainly contributes to this ultra-realism, with both Voight and Hoffman masterfully portraying the two decadent dregs of modern society. Hoffman, in particular, is exceptional in his role (I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), managing to steer well clear of being typecast after his much-lauded debut in 1967's 'The Graduate.' Both stars were later nominated for Best Actor Oscars (also nominated for acting – bafflingly – was Sylvia Miles, for an appearance that can't have been for more than five minutes), though both ultimately lost out to John Wayne in 'True Grit.' 'Midnight Cowboy' eventually went on to win three Oscars from seven nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director for Schlesinger and Best Writing for Waldo Salt.

'Midnight Cowboy' is told mainly in a linear fashion, though there are numerous flashbacks that hint at Joe's past. Rather than explicitly explaining what these brief snippets are actually about, the audience is invited to think about it for themselves, and how these circumstances could have led Joe onto the path he is now pursuing. The achingly-beautiful final scene leaves us with a glimmer of hope, but a large amount of uncertainty. Gritty, thought-provoking and intensely fascinating, 'Midnight Cowboy' is one for the ages.@@@1 +I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.@@@0 +"Midnight Cowboy" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish "Anaconda" is a source of pleasure).

The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from "The Graduate" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.

Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).

It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all.@@@1 +Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!@@@0 +Just kidding.

Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.

While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.

Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.

8.5/10@@@1 +This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)

The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...

I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.

It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.

See it and laugh!@@@0 +Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.

What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene.

The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.@@@1 +Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."

First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!

So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.

And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...

Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.@@@0 +Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.

He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.

Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.

The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.

It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman.@@@1 +This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.

Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.

The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.

You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick.@@@0 +After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.

Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.

The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.

Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.@@@1 +Where to start ?! . . . I feel ... violated! Thats right, violated! I just spent 1.5hrs of my life, 1.5hrs that I could have spent doing something more useful, like watching paint dry, on this so called horror flick.

Its not scary, its not funny, its not dramatic, its no action, its nothing...

Its predictable, its boring, its tragic...

I might come of a bit harsh here, but watch this movie and you will feel the same way ... or ... no, don't watch it...unless you want to feel violated also.@@@0 +Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****@@@1 +Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.@@@0 +It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".

The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.

In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.

The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger".@@@1 +I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.

And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.

The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".

So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)@@@0 +'Midnight Cowboy' was rated X with the original release back in 1969. There are some scenes where you can understand that, just a little. The movie about Joe Buck (Jon Voight) coming from Texas to New York City to become a hustler is sometimes a little disturbing. Dressed up as a cowboy he tries to live as a hustler, making money by the act of love. It does not work out as he planned. After a guy named Rico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) first pulled a trick on him and stole some money they become friends. They live in an empty and very filthy apartment. Then Ratso gets sick and Joe has to try to make some money.

The movie was probably rated X for the main subject but on the way we see some strange things. The editing in this movie is great. We see dream sequences from Joe and Ratso interrupted by the real world in a nice and sometimes funny way. Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and the supporting actors give great performances. Especially Hoffman delivers some fine famous lines. The score is done by John Barry and sounds great. All this makes this a great movie that won the Best Picture Oscar for a good reason.@@@1 +This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.

The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).

The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past.

Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.@@@0 +Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly "tutti-fruttis." Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.

There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery "Everybody's Talking'"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.

A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser.@@@1 +Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...

Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.

I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...

Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...

But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.

Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.

3/10@@@0 +At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things.

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!)

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.@@@1 +In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!@@@0 +I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)

So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.

The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.

Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.

Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)

4.5/5@@@1 +I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.@@@0 +The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).

I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.

This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.

The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.

I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.

I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.

I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.

On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.

Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.

Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences.@@@1 +DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...

Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.

Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?

Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.

DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still...@@@0 +Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since.

Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences.

It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools.

10/10@@@1 +Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)

NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10@@@0 +Virile, but naive, big Joe Buck leaves his home in Big Spring, Texas, and hustles off to the Big Apple in search of women and big bucks. In NYC, JB meets up with frustration, and with "Ratso" Rizzo, a scruffy but cordial con artist. Somehow, this mismatched pair manage to survive each other which in turn helps both of them cope with a gritty, sometimes brutal, urban America, en route to a poignant ending.

Both funny and depressing, our "Midnight Cowboy" rides head-on into the vortex of cyclonic cultural change, and thus confirms to 1969 viewers that they, themselves, have been swept away from the 1950's age of innocence, and dropped, Dorothy and Toto like, into the 1960's Age of Aquarius.

The film's direction is masterful; the casting is perfect; the acting is top notch; the script is crisp and cogent; the cinematography is engaging; and the music enhances all of the above. Deservedly, it won the best picture Oscar of 1969, and I would vote it as one of the best films of that cyclonic decade.@@@1 +Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?@@@0 +In my opinion, this is one of the greatest movies ever made in America and it deserved every single award it won and it's place on the AFI Top 100 list (though it's shamefully too low on the IMDB Top 250 list, at only #183 as of this writing). If you enjoy acting of the highest calibre (Voight and Hoffman are a superb match), well-drawn characterizations and inventive direction, editing and cinematography, you'll love this just as much as I did. Schlesinger paints a vivid, always credible picture of the late 60s New York City scene and it's many victims struggling to overcome personal demons and survive amidst the amorality, poverty and hopelessness of 42nd Street, New York City.

The filmmaking techniques employed here brilliantly capture the feel of the underground New York film movement (and of the city) and are nothing less than dazzling. I've seen many ideas (including the rapid-fire editing, the handling of the voice-over flashbacks, the drug/trip sequences and the cartoonish face slipped in during a murder scene to convey angst and terror) stolen by other filmmakers.

The relationship between Joe and Ratso is handled in such a way as to be viewed as an unusually strong friendship OR having it's homosexual underpinnings. I think the director handled this in a subtle way not to cop out to the censorship of the times, but rather to concentrate his energies on the importance of a strong human connection in life, whether it be sexual or not.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a brave, moving film of magnitude, influence and importance that has lost absolutely none of it's impact over the years, so if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on a true American classic. I recommend this film to everyone.

Score: 10 out of 10.@@@1 +This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)

The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.

Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?

Overall boring and laughable horror.@@@0 +Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?

Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.

There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.

This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.

Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.

A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.@@@1 +The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely.@@@0 +I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of "American Idol"'s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do "Survivor" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as "Last Comic Standing." I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like "Big Brother," but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.@@@1 +Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...

Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10

www.ResidentHazard.com@@@0 +Horror is perhaps one of two genres where logic doesn't always win out over imagination. We all know that killers like Freddy, Jason, Michael and even Leatherface shouldn't be able to sustain the amount of pain they do and still live to fight another day. Most of us don't believe that zombies really rise from the dead to stalk people and eat their brains. And let's hope that at least some people know that when you enter places like Funhouses and old mansions that unspeakable crimes are not going to be perpetrated against them. This is where imagination wins out over fact. Horror, and most films in general, requires us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours and just go with the flow. This usually isn't a problem when I watch bouncing balls being hurled down the stairs at George C. Scott or when I see an unseen force stalking three amateur film makers in the woods near Burketsville. But what I do have a problem digesting ( without wanting to regurgitate ) is when a film has a killer like the one in this film. To give away who the killer is would actually be a huge spoiler and it would take away all fun of watching it for yourself, but just suffice to say that I actually enjoyed this film right up to final scene when the killer is revealed. There are too many events in the film that transpire for it to make any sense that the killer is who it is. But the 90 minutes prior to this point is a well done, suspenseful, blood soaked film directed with panache and skill by John Hough. If the film would have offered me a different killer, then I would actually be raving about it. This may sound like a completely asinine reason to discredit the film, but believe me, anyone who has seen the film is almost sure to agree with me.

John Cassevetes plays Dr. Sam Cordell. He and his daughter Jenny ( played beautifully by Erin Flannery ) have just recently moved to this small New England town. Cordell is a recent widow and it is unclear how his wife died. We see several flashback scenes where a mystery woman ( one can only presume it is his wife ) is laying backside on the ground during a torrential downpour. Her face is bloodied and her eyes are closed. Again, I am not sure who this woman is and what relevance she has to the story but she is there anyway. Cassevetes, it has to be mentioned, is strange to say the least. Cordell is a loving father but his love for his daughter seems to be a little more than just parental. There are a few scenes that hint of incestuous possibilities. It never comes to fruition but it just seems to be omnipotent, but somewhere just beneath the proverbial rug. Thankfully the film never really explores this element of the relationship but it does make you a little uneasy.

Casevettes seems like a cross between the porno actor John Leslie and screen great James Caan. He has a deceptive smile and a virile, commanding voice that makes you sit up and take notice. But he also looks like he is about to disrobe during a business luncheon in every scene. He just has that slimy, disingenuous, phlegmatic, uneasy way about him. He never really looks like he can be trusted in this film. I guess that is a credit to the writers, the director and to Cassevetes himself. There was always something that just bothered me about his character from the get-go.

The story begins on an excellent note as two would be lovers are swimming in the local quarry. There is a rickety old changing shed near by and as we can see, something or someone is watching them. When the young man briefly disappears to get something from the truck, the young woman wanders into the shed, just to play a prank. Once she is there, she is attacked. The young man dashes to the shed to find her and he is impaled with a board and nail. Hough shrewdly sets us up for the payoff pitch when the young man comes in. He looks frantically scours the room and spots his would-be lover bleeding in the corner, and then smacko, the guy gets it. It is a very tense moment and it starts the film off on the correct note.

Also introduced into the tangled wed of a story is a young man named Tim that seems to be having strange dreams of a faceless woman that is bound in a torture chamber surrounded by men with cloaks covering their faces. Tim seems to think that his dreams have something to do with the murders because every time a murder takes place, he has another dream. Toss in a quiet and turbid grandmother, a meretricious female reporter and a strong yet venal local sheriff and you have all the ingredients necessary to create the makings of an imbroglio in the small town of Galen.

Throughout the film more people are massacred but most of the time, the males are slaughtered with extreme prejudice and the females are raped. This is my first feeble (and careful) attempt to tell you that this is what left me unconvinced with the denouement. It just didn't strike the right chord.

The Incubus is a well done film. It is tense, tight and even most of the performances are very well done. I was intrigued by the dreams that Tim was having and I was anxious to find out what significance they had to the story and ultimately to the murders. But when you get through all that was good in the film, you are still left with that acerbic taste in your mouth. And bitter pills are always more difficult to swallow than sweet ones.

7 out of 10-- This could have been a nine. Too bad.@@@1 +Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.

No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.

The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.

For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.

It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please.@@@0 +Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.

Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.

Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.

The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.

All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.

*** out of ****@@@1 +What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!@@@0 +This is a wonderful film... First impressions of cynicism and crassness are soon dissipated by a fun loving display of how men and women's baser motivations diverge (Vive la difference !)

You can love people despite and sometimes because of their weaknesses. Human beings are a bit rubbish really, but we have big hearts and we try our best, despite temptation. It's not our fault when sometimes temptation can't be resisted, that's just who we are.

There is a consistent stylishness from start to finish; crisp photography and sharp composition, very pleasant viewing when you add provocative content, well suited music and laugh out loud scripting.

Watch out for the very young "lone wise voice"... brilliant; wisdom from innocence balancing comedy from the human condition.@@@1 +I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.@@@0 +This is one of those unfortunate films that suffered an even more sad, unfortunate death at the box office. I saw this film at a local art cinema,in revival form,shortly after it tanked in mainstream cinemas. It certainly deserves to be approached a second time (or even a third). Sandra B. takes it to the limit by doing spoken word & taking on some well known songs in this piece (her version of Hank William's 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' could easily move you to tears). Maybe someday, audiences will be ready to take this film a bit more seriously (but not without some well placed laughs,too). The film moves at a brisk pace (thanks to some nice editing),so that some viewers will not find it stale & boring. Perhaps a revival is just down the pipeline.@@@1 +We saw this on the shelf at the local video store, saw "Coppola" in the credits and got excited. That was the one and only time this movie raised any interest. I could never quite work out if it was an attempt at a humourous film that failed miserably, or an attempt at a serious film that failed miserably. In general, the entire production seemed incredibly amatuerish. The sound in particular was absolutely dreadful, especially in the scenes shot in the little bar; the dialogue was so corny in parts it was unbelievable. Very disappointing.@@@0 +This is truly the greatest Swedish movie of all time. Not only is it revolutionary in its narration, but its also among the first movies to feature the next generation of Swedish humor and Swedish comedians. Felix Herngren and Fredrik Lindström are two of the most intelligent and witty filmmakers in Sweden today, and this film really puts that on display.

"Vuxna människor" (Adult People) is a warm-hearted and hilarious story about adulthood, and the question if we wouldn´t be better off without it.@@@1 +This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.@@@0 +This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!

All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!

Highly recommended.@@@1 +"Nacho Libre" (2006)

Directed By: Jared Hess

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog)

Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.

Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor…of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.

The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.

"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just…well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.

Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)@@@0 +High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see.@@@1 +Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.@@@0 +I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\

All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.

I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.

Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.@@@1 +We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.@@@0 +In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.@@@1 +What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?@@@0 +Four words account for why this film was made - "She Done Him Wrong". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.

Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.

Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival.@@@1 +I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.

Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...

What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!

Just skip this piece of garbage

P.S. (sorry for my English)@@@0 +George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer.

In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)

As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.@@@1 +I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....@@@0 +A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.

Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.

Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for.@@@1 +Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...

Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.

I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"

But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.@@@0 +Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.@@@1 +- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -

I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered.

I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny.

It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.

I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.@@@0 +when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie@@@1 +Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.

She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.

More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.@@@0 +Did Sandra (yes, she must have) know we would still be here for her some nine years later?

See it if you haven't, again if you have; see her live while you can.@@@1 +This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.

All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.

The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.

What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.

Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.

If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.

What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.@@@0 +There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better!

I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better!@@@1 +There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.

Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.

Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles....@@@0 +Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).@@@1 +Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.

O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.

The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!

This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.@@@0 +Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!@@@1 +2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.@@@0 +Ah, clichés, clichés, clichés; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller.@@@1 +If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.@@@0 +Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.

Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.

Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.@@@1 +Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better.

This movie was a total disaster.@@@0 +So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)@@@1 +Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?@@@0 +Ok, first I have to point the fact that when I first saw this flick I was 9 years old. If I had seen this one two weeks ago for the first time, I´d probably have noted that this is just another cheaply-made-cable-TV horror film with some well-made scenes. But when you´re nine you just don´t care about those facts. This scared the hell out of me back then, especially those aforementioned Zelda- scenes (and they still do). Nowadays I´m kind of hooked to this film. I have to see this maybe once in a month, and on every new year´s eve I watch this with a 12-pack of beer & bunch of friends. It´s like an appetizer for a good party! I kinda agree to those people who said that the acting here is pretty unintense. Midkiff and Crosby do look like I wanted Louis and Rachel look like, but one can´t see very much devotion or feelings on the faces of these two. Hughes and Gwynne pretty much save the scenes which "the Creeds" underact. What I actually want to say about this is the fact that there really is no other film that has any kind of similarity to Pet Sematary, and I don´t mean the zombie stuff here. THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS FILM IS CERTAINLY A NOVELTY AND ONE OF A KIND. Honestly, how many times you have seen a film which on superficial level looks like a cable-TV one, but leave you with a chill compared to only the best horror-chillers out there? Alright I busted some of the cast´s balls a minute ago, but I have to say that all pieces in that level too hone the overall acting to perfection. But hey tell me if you really know some film which is similar to Pet Sematary! I really would love to know...And I don´t mean night of the living dead here...this one is way beyond compare in intelligence compared to that stuff.@@@1 +Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.@@@0 +*****Spoilers herein*****

What really scares you? Killer sharks, or maybe ghosts trying to bring back a message? Maybe a chainsaw wielding psychopath?

Maybe. But those fears don't even compare to a horror which people dare not even speak of or consider--and that is the death of one's own child. "Pet Sematary" taps this base, primal adult fear, and then takes it to places that most could not bear to explore.

I've read comments about this film that include poor acting, characters making stupid decisions, etc. I disagree. The acting is actually first rate for a film like this. Maybe it is impossible for many to imagine the desperation resulting from such a scenario. But the film's events are not only logical, they may be absolutely inevitable if such a scenario were possible. This is the true horror of "Pet Sematary": It isn't that pets and people come back from the dead as evil killers who hunt with knives and scalpels, it is that anyone who has lost a child could become so desperate as to commit the crimes that Louis Creed does. Despite warning, or even past history.

The movie takes those willing to go with it to the depths of a desperate human heart. The heart of a protector trying to make up for not being able to protect. And the results are horrifying. In fact, when the film dives into slasher territory near the end, it's almost a letdown, although I believe it's perfectly logical how it got there.

I am a true horror fan, and I contend that this is one of the scariest horror films ever made. If you don't think so, see it again after you have children.@@@1 +In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.

All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.

The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.

Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.@@@0 +MINOR SPOILER

Underrated little Stephen King shocker. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination--even if the limp performances of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby were better, there'd still be the mismanaged mystical story elements to contend with. The old Micmac burial ground, Rachel's terminally ill sister, and the Jacob-Marley-an Victor Pascow never really come together into anything coherent, and the film in places feels confused and overstuffed. But few horror movies really are perfect, and what this one may lack in other areas it makes up for in its willingness to shock. `Pet Sematary' may actually be one of the cruelest horror films in recent memory, with its murderous zombie baby and its insanely insensitive portrayal of Zelda. It's politically incorrect, it's tasteless, it's gratuitous--and yet it makes us squirm with revulsion in a way `safer' horror movies never can. Add to that one of Fred Gwynne's best performances and Mary Lambert's witty direction, and you have an intensely satisfying scary movie--even with the hokey ending. Highly recommended for genre fans. 7.5 out of 10.@@@1 +Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.

The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?

Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.@@@0 +"Pet Sematary" succeeds on two major situations. First, it's a scary Horror movie. Those that just aren't produced in these days. Second, it's an emotional, clever movie overall. So if you are looking for chills, scares, creepiness and visually stunning settings, great acting, dialongs, and gruesome effects; this is the movie you are looking for. A classic now and truly a must see for any Horror fan.

Probably, the best adaptation to any of King's novels. The events feel a little rushed compared with the novel, but that doesn't means that this underrated movie isn't a complete Horror/Drama accomplishment.

Stephen King's novel is widely known for being very emotional and gruesome at the same time. The movie captures the same feeling mainly because there's a great character development and you can feel the loving relationship between it's members. Then, when everything seems to be happiness (technically happy, because the title "Pet Sematary" does not offers appiness!) a tragic event changes the movie's atmosphere, now it turns very dark. The movie has a sinister feeling since the opening credits, but after Gage is killed the movie becomes sad, gray, creepy. Dealing with the loss of a baby son is something that can ruin a family's entire life, and "Pet Sematary" proves it dramatically.

The legend behind the pet sematary is more than a myth that no one wants to experience, but sadness and desperation lead an emotionally destroyed father to give it a shot. Sadly enough, the legend comes true and baby Gage returns from the dead. The previous encounter with the pet sematary legend turned out to be a tragedy but this time it's something much, much worse. What will happened with the lives of our All American family? Could Pascow prevent this tragedy? What is it with the surreal nightmares?

Watch "Pet Sematary" to witness one of the most touching, emotional Horror movies of recent times. You won't regret. The acting is very good although I didn't dig the actor who portrayed the father. He didn't seem disturbed enough when the situations asked for his desperation. But that's just my opinion. Denise Crosby truly delivered a great performance and worked perfect as the noble, tender mother. Baby Gage was amazing even on his creepy parts. *Shivers*. Overall this is a great classic of all time and a disturbing movie that touches people's deepest fears... the loss of someone you love, the dead returning to life, and a feeling of desperation.

Something is for sure... I don't wanna be buried, in a pet sematary!!@@@1 +Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.

The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).

Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.

Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.@@@0 +If you ever have the chance to see Sandra Bernhard live in person, you better move on it sweetie. I saw her last year in Los Angeles at the opening of her Everything Bad and Beautiful tour and i still can't believe that i was in the first row, and lucky enough to experience such a phenomenal show. She is now in New York with the show and it coincides with the release of her groundbreaking stunner, "Without You I'm Nothing". We have lost Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Nina Simone, but Sandra is still with us. Patti Smith is missing in action, but not Sandra. Barbara Streisand continues to peep her head out once in awhile but Sandra more than makes up for where Babs leaves off. Okay, i want it known, Ms. Bernhard is a little of these influential entertainers and more. I really wanted to push this film because of its truth, honesty, humor, eclectic songs (ranging from Laura Nyro, Sylvester, Nina Simone, Prince), and a script that defines the decadence, joy, sadness, ups and downs of the 70's and 80's. It is my opinion that many (and i mean, MANY) comics have lifted, okay outright stolen, so much from this show if not from Sandra herself. I won't name names but come on, people, you and i know who they are. See, the thing is, Bernhard plays by her own rules. This movie shows, as does her live performances, that she is a performer who has stayed true to the old school of show business, as well as pushing forward. Her performances are reminiscent of smoky jazz clubs (during the time of Miles Davis,Coltrane,Monk), 70's TV shows, intimate cabaret acts and concerts that are reminiscent of everyone from Judy Garland to Joan Jett. Most comedians couldn't even touch where Sandra is coming from or going to. So, here i was, a year ago, watching Sandra at the Silent Movie Theater, in total awe and joy. I wanted to meet her after the show, give her something that meant something to me, that, hopefully would mean something to her. But i listen to my copy of Giving Til it Hurts, and just thank her in a prayer, of sorts for making me laugh, making me think, making me FEEL. You can't deny this lady's presence and you certainly cannot deny the talent that just rushes from the stage. She's still here, damn it, even after the release of Without You I'm Nothing, some 15 years ago. And she looks great, by the way. I know this firsthand, walking from the theater one audience member said to another, "She is SO FUNNY..and she still looks incredible!!! If you can't experience her live yet, please see this movie. As for me, I do hope that Sandra will see this. You've meant a heck of a lot to me, gotten me through some tough crazy times. If you can send me an email, please do. If not, knowing that you are still kicking it out and will continue to do so, is enough for me. Come on, people, give it up for the Lady!!!!@@@1 +I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.@@@0 +Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.

All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.

There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS).

Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.

Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed.

It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.

Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."

About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)

Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.

Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now.@@@1 +The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.

This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.@@@0 +This is one of the creepiest, scariest and most heartbreaking horror movie EVER!

Dr Creed (Louise) and his family moving in to new home with his wife (Rachel), Daughter (Ellie) and little son (Gage) Everything seems normal until Dr Creed loses one his patient who had a terrible head injury,Then he is haunted by the ghost know as Victor takes him to the Pet Sematarty and show him that where the dead come to life.

Louis not knowing if that was all dream and is talking to Ellie who worried about her cat that could be killed by lorry and then later on Rachel tells Louis that it really hard for to talk about death because of her sister Zelda who was really sick (As we see in a flashback how sick her sister really was and this is one of the most creepiest scene ever!)

The next day Louis gets a call from Jed saying there cat as been killed by lorry and Jed take him to place where Victor the Ghost told him not to go! And bury the Cat, His wife and kids have go to see their Grandparents and Louise is home alone shocked to see the cat is back and now it as evil in it eyes so he goes to see Jed then Jed tell him that he also buried his dog there too (As we seen other flashback).

Later on in the movie The Family out having Picnic, Gage is playing with kite and Gage say's I drop it", The wind blow the rod near the road where a lorry coming at fast past, Gage is get closer to road, Louis is rushing to get him, The most HEARTBREAKING scene in any horror movie will leave with your Jaw on floor or Shivers will go down your back when you hear Louis screams, Soon he missing him so much, Louis then buries Gage in same place where is buried the Cat.

The scariest thing about this movie is that some scenes in this movie are not too far from really life.

This movie is just Amazing and the acting from everyone was great! 10 out 10@@@1 +The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.

If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").

Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.

But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.

Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!@@@0 +I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.

I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.

The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.

@@@1 +Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.@@@0 +"Pet Sematary" is an adaptation from the Stephen King novel of the same title. The story follows the Creeds - an all American, middle-class family, who move into a house out in the country. The family consists of Louis and Rachel, and their two young children, Ellie and their toddler son, Gage. The house couldn't be better, and the family meets a strange but friendly old man, Jud, who lives across the road. He leads them down an old path into the woods one day where a pet graveyard lies - filled with a huge amount of animal graves. And just beyond there, lies a sacred Indian burial ground that seems to possess a strange power. When the family cat, Church, is killed, Louis sees it fit to bury him in the pet cemetery - and strangely enough, soon after, Church returns to life. But there's something evil about him now, he isn't the same cat he used to be. And when a tragic accident takes the life of young Gage, Louis decides to apply the same concept in hopes of reviving his dead son... unfortunately, he gets more than he bargained for.

Having read Stephen King's novel, I can say that the book is much better than the film. Not to say the movie is bad, because it isn't - the book is just a little bit better. The real strength in this film lies in it's story, which is both bizarre but extremely original, something that King's stories are typically known for. The script is very well adapted from the story, and while it minorly differs in some aspects, it's a pretty good page-to-screen transformation. There are a few plot holes here and there, nothing major though. Besides that, this movie is actually pretty scary, and it succeeds in it's intention to do so. There are some really disturbing scenes throughout the film, and I'd have to say that the flashback sequence of Rachel's sister Zelda is the number one. Honestly, that is one of the most disgusting, disturbing things I've ever seen in a horror film - it's not gory and bloody, it's just flat out sickening. One thing's for sure, that image won't leave your head anytime soon.

The performances in this film were all very up to par and I really had no problem there. This film is actually on the gory side, there are plenty of nasty little sequences to please all of the gore hounds out there, including the shocker of an ending. I really liked the way they ended the film, it was abrupt and somewhat inconclusive, but it worked better that way with all things considered.

Overall, "Pet Sematary" is a good horror movie that I'd recommend to those who are fans of either Stephen King or just fans of the genre in general. The story is the film's greatest asset and it's a creepy one too. One of the better Stephen King adaptations I'd say. 7/10.@@@1 +"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.

Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.

The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.

This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.@@@0 +Louis Creed, a doctor from Chicago, moves to a large house near a small town, since he is going to be giving classes in the University of Maine's. Along with him, is his wife Rachel and their two kids, Ellie and Gage,as well as Ellie's cat, Church. Soon, they met their new neighbor,and old man named Judd Crandall.Judd not only warns Louis and Rachel about the danger that is the highway that runs past their house(that is constantly a way used by big trucks) but also show to the family a pet cemetery that is located near their house. Judd starts to talk about the importance of the pet cemetery, but Rachel is against to talk about death and spirituality with her children, since she has traumas from her sister Zelda's death.

During the first week of the family in the new house, Louis already has dead people to deal with: Victor Pascow, a student who has been fatally injured in an automobile accident, addresses his dying words to Louis personally, even though the two men are strangers. On the night following Pascow's death, Louis experiences what he believes is a very vivid dream in which he meets Pascow, who leads him to the pet cemetery and warns Louis to not "go beyond, no matter how much you feel you need to." Louis wakes up in bed the next morning convinced it was only a dream, until he discovers his feet and the bedsheets covered with dirt and pine needles. Anyway, he dismisses the dream. Many strange things starts to happen and Church, Ellie's cat, dies while walking on the highway. Louis stays worried in how he is going to talk about Church's death with Ellie, but Judd, sympathizing with him, Jud takes Louis to the pet cemetery, supposedly to bury Church. But instead of stopping there, Jud leads Louis farther on a frightening journey to "the real cemetery": an ancient burial ground that was once used by the Micmac ('...Indians...'). There Louis buries the cat on Jud's instruction, with Jud saying that animals buried there have come back to life. And that is where the real horror story begins...

I personally find this movie very good. It's not THE most horrifying of all, but it is one of the best horror movies I watched. The way Gage dies, is almost impossible to not stay in your memory, specially being a toddler. It's cool to see Stephen King's cameo as the minister of the funeral.

Of course, there are some script errors: How can a rich doctor with two small kids, goes to live in a place where there is a dangerous highway near his house? How Gage has no scratches or anything after being hit by a truck? Why Louis continues to resurrect every member of his family knowing they are all going to stay like monsters? Things like that doesn't make any sense, but I can understand that all horror's scripts needs to have some surreal ideas to work.

A good thing I saw in this movie, is the necessity to talk about death with the children, no matter what is your religion or if you are an atheist, and also that avoiding important subjects doesn't help anything. Because of Louis being afraid to be honest with Ellie, confronting her and saying that her cat wouldn't be back again, all the nightmare began.@@@1 +This is a truly terrible film.

I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.

Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.

I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?

Please, please, please do not watch this film!@@@0 +As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.@@@1 +Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.@@@0 +In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...)

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.@@@1 +I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.

I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.

0 out of **** stars.@@@0 +Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.

Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.

When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.

Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.

This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from "The Exorcist." The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.

The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.

9/10@@@1 +The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.

Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]

Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.

I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.

Avoid

* / **** (one star out of four)

@@@0 +I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favorite horror films of all time. 10 out of 10.@@@1 +This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)

I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.

This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.@@@0 +Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out.@@@1 +Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!@@@0 +Well, this might be one of the funniest movies of all time, and Sandy gives a tour-de-force performance! Alas, her career never quite took off, but - at last - she will always be remembered for her three first-rate pictures: "The King Of Comedy", "Dallas Doll", and "Without You I'm Nothing". She dons into different personas from New York socialite to Diana Ross to create a biting and hilarious critique of popular culture in America. Sexy and fierce, tender and sensual, philosophical and melancholic, she convinces the audience in every scene, and she actually IS "really pretty". Watch this one (if you're not from Iowa), you'll certainly enjoy it!!@@@1 +I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.@@@0 +One of the best (if not the best) Stephen King's screenings. Dark as dark can be, surprising non-hollywood ending, terrifying atmosphere, amazing book adaptation, outstanding cast, educational (don't play with afterlife), in short - everything an excellent horror should be...

My favorite horror movie, straight 10+.@@@1 +First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.

FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!@@@0 +This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in "New Nightmare")is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that "Pet Sematary" will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans!@@@1 +The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...

Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...

Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.

I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.

The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.@@@0 +I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!@@@1 +I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.

All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.@@@0 +I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.@@@1 +OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.

The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.

I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.

About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.@@@0 +Bad script, bad direction, over the top performances, overwrought dialogue. What more could you ask for? For laughs, it just doesn't get any better than this. Zadora's over-acting combined with the cliched scenarios she finds herself in make for an hilarious parody of the "Hollywood" machine. Almost as funny as "Spinal Tap" even though it was clearly not intended as such. Don't miss Ray Liotta's debut film line, "Looks like a penis."@@@1 +The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.

First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.

For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!@@@0 +The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token.

Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in "The Ring". A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go "one round" with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.

At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?

The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.

Highly Recommended.@@@1 +This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.

Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.

As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.

1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.@@@0 +'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.@@@1 +My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.@@@0 +Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesques—at Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cutting—all very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?@@@1 +What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."

You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.

And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.

Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.

If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.@@@0 +Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.@@@1 +I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.

"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.

Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.

In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.

Avoid this steaming pile.@@@0 +I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.

Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.

Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.

The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.

(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.

The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.@@@1 +The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.@@@0 +Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."

There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."

There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.

But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.

Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."

She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."

She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"

Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"

Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."

Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"

All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.

In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.

If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.

But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else.@@@1 +Even if this film was allegedly a joke in response to critics it's still an awful film. If one is going to commit to that sort of thing at least make it a good joke.....first off, Jeroen Krabbé is i guess the poor man's Gerard Depardieu.....naturally i hate Gerard Depardieu even though he was very funny in the 'Iron Mask' three musketeer one. Otherwise to me he is box office poison and Jeroen Krabbé is worse than that. The poor man's box office poison....really that is not being fair to the economically disenfranchised. If the '4th Man' is supposed to be some sort of critique of the Bourgeoisie....what am i saying? it isn't. Let's just say hypothetically, if it was supposed to be, it wasn't sharp enough. Satire is a tricky thing....if it isn't sharp enough the viewer becomes the butt of the joke instead......i think that is what happened. The story just ends up as a bunch of miserable disgusting characters doing nothing that anyone would care about and not in an interesting way either.....(for a more interesting and worthwhile application see any Luis Bunuel film....very sharp satire)

[potential spoiler alert]

Really, the blow job in the cemetery that Jeroen Krabbé's character works so so hard to attain.... do you even care? is it funny? since Mr. Voerhoven is supposed to be a good film maker i will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was some misanthropic joke that got out of control.....though i'm guessing he didn't cast Jeroen Krabbé because he's the worst actor and every character he's played has been a pretentious bourgeois ass.... except he's incompetent at it. So it becomes like a weird caricature. Do you think Mr. Voerhoven did that on purpose? and Jeroen Krabbé is the butt of the joke as well? I just don't see it...... So you understand the dilemma i'm faced with here right? It is the worst film ever because he's supposed to be a good director. So there is some kind of dupery involved. I knew 'Patch Adams' was horrible without even seeing it. Do not be duped by 'The 4th Man"s deceptively alluring packaging or mr. Voerhoven's reputation as a good director etc. etc.@@@0 +Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect.@@@1 +My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.@@@0 +This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.

Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.

The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.

This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.@@@1 +The good fellas at Webster's Dictionary define Logophobia as the ‘fear of words'. I may just be Logophobic. For no word combination scares me more than when at the beginning of a film, credits contain the words `Produced, Written and Directed by:', and are followed by a single individual's name. Think about it. There are carpenters, electricians and plumbers, but so few jack-of-all-trades. Even the most seasoned of directors like Speilberg and Scorsese rarely take such control of their films. But there I was, all nestled in my theatre seat, popcorn in hand and about to watch The Order when hurled at me like a Nolan Ryan fastball, were the words `Produced, Written and Directed by Brian Helgeland'. Whoa!

Being a film buff, I knew of Brian Helgeland. As a writer his filmograpghy over the past 10 years would be graphed like a dotcom company's stock price in 1998. There were as many theatrical unpleasantries (Assassins, The Postman, Conspiracy Theory) as there were critical and award winning successes (L.A. Confidential, Mystic River). They seemed to alternate – one good, one bad, so knowing that his last film, BloodWork was one of the most wasted efforts in Clint Eastwood's career, I took a breath and hoped for the best. In retrospect, I should not have exhaled.

The Order stars Heath Ledger (Helgeland's A Knights Tale), as Alex Bernier, a priest in an order known as the Carolingians, who is summoned to Rome when a fellow priest is killed under circumstances that the Arch Bishop deems ‘curious'. Meeting up with Father Thomas (also of the Order and played wonderfully by Still Standings' Mark Addy), they set out to piece together the riddle left behind in the wake of the priest's untimely death.

Complicating matters is a sub plot involving Mara Sinclair (played by Shannyn Sossamon) who has escaped from an institution that was the result of her attempts to kill Alex during an exorcism. Alex has feelings towards Mara and for some reason unbeknownst to the audience, they travel to Rome together.

Nary a good nights sleep goes by and Alex is confronted by William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who claims to be a centuries old Sin Eater. A Sin Eater, as we are told, are those that eat the sins of a dying individual when the church does not, thus allowing entrance into Heaven. William, as luck would have it, is tired of a life of healing and looks for Alex to take over his role and free him from his worldly duties. Alex is reluctant, but after the death of his new love Mara, Alex resorts to the ritual of the Sin Eater to save her and the transformation is complete. Alex then searches for answers to his many queries while Father Thomas unveils the Vatican plot behind the passing of authority to his fellow investigator.

The Order is not a terrible film, but it is terribly boring. There were ridiculous special effects and no connection with any of the characters. Even in the most dramatic scene - that of Alex walking in on the dying Mara - is pale and bland and leaves us with no emotional response towards the couple's plight. Everybody seems to talk so quietly and unemotionally that the film flat lines and smelling salts could have been administered to keep me from trying to grab a quick nap in the middle of the film.

So, Mr. Helgeland, I plead with you not to try this again. Share your vision with others and allow those more experienced to help direct you in directions that are not so narrow minded and self-serving. Until then, there is nothing emanating that shows you are capable of anything more than a failing grade. Two stars.

@@@0 +Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through.@@@1 +Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.@@@0 +At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!@@@1 +In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.@@@0 +The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.

As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound – for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.

There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.

Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.

The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.

The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.@@@1 +The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.

They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.

Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.@@@0 +The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.@@@1 +::POTENTIAL SPOILERS::

Man, this movie was awful. A Catholic/superstitious/suspense thriller it goes over already well tread ground from previous movies.

The doubting priest. Sex and the priesthood. Politics and religion. Church hypocrisy. Conspiracy involving the church. The dawn of a new evil age. All kinds of dark magic voodoo battles between good and evil.

Pretty stupid and lame with a weak storyline to suffice. The story revolves around two concepts: Absolution, better known as the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick - the last rights a person can ask for to cleanse one's sins while on the brink of death; And Excommunication, the act of cutting a person off from the Church. Basically, an Excommunicated person can't receive Absolution. Thus comes in the Sin Eater, and I'll leave it at that. Throw in all the dopy things I already listed and you have "The Order".

I found the sex scene with the priest interlaced with shots of a picture of the Virgin Mary rather insulting to Catholics. It also ends with Heath Ledger saying (I paraphrase) "I am the redeemer and damner of sins, I live on without love blah blah blah" /cue him walking in dark alley with long trench coat alla "The Matrix".

I gave this movie a 1 for not only being crappy and unoriginal but also because it managed to insult an entire faith in the process. If you want to see something better I suggest "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.@@@0 +This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.@@@1 +Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.@@@0 +I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie.@@@1 +No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.

I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.

Not so Royal Flash.

I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).

What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).

None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.

Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.

If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.

A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.

My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.

If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.@@@0 +This documentary was nominated for an Oscar and it's easy to see why. Even 45 years later, it is quite an impressive piece of work. Why it isn't in-print is a mystery that only Disney can explain. Good use of live footage and animation in tandem. This used to run as part of "Vault Disney" every few months or so, but I haven't seen it listed in quite a while. *sigh* Most recommended.@@@1 +As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.@@@0 +Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...

I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.

That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.

Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...

Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.

Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.@@@1 +Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.@@@0 +Buddy is an entertaining family film set in a time when "humanizing" animals, and making them cute was an accepted way to get people to be interested in them.

Based on a true story, Buddy shows the great love that the main characters have for animals and for each other, and that they will do anything for each other.

While not a perfect movie, the animated gorilla is quite lifelike most of the time and the mayhem that occurs within the home is usually amusing for children.

This film misses an opportunity to address the mistake of bringing wild animals into the home as pets, but does show the difficulties.

A recommended film which was the first for Jim Henson Productions.@@@1 This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.

Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.

This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.@@@0 -That was great fun! I never read those Chester-Gould-comics but it's not necessary to know them. Maybe there were some inside jokes I didn't figure out but what the eye doesn't see the heart cannot grieve over. This is such an ironic, colourful film and the actors are good-humoured all together. The setting is similar to that in the „Batman` movies, but not as dark and grey. Okay, the story is not so original but there is a plot (which is not self-evident) and a more or less surprising ending.

With this movie, you could play an interesting game, if you watch it with friends. Don't watch the credits at the beginning and then look who's the fastest to find out who are the famous actors under their make-up!@@@1 -Getting lost in space frozen for 15 years, that's unlikely. Falling into a star... improbable. Falling into it the day it goes supernova and explodes... ludicrous. Getting rescued by a ship just then... priceless.

No, it's not Zaphod Beeblebrox's Heart of Gold to the rescue. It's also not the Parent of the Year awardees. After sentencing her daughter to two years' solitary confinement on an abandoned spaceship, the mother encourages her to get drunk and wander off alone with the strange man they've picked up. This foreshadows their prowess in hand to hand combat, which makes up most of the film's action. Combat highlights include for example the psycho talking close up face to face with one woman while blindly pointing the gun behind him at the other about six inches away, who obligingly simpers in the line of fire.

In the end, the family of three abandons the metropolis-sized ship they were planning to use to observe the supernova until the last instant because it is too slow to escape the blast wave, instead using the psycho's fighter ship which they've refueled in one minute with 1600 pounds of gas propellant from a 0.7-kiloton missile. You have to love those hard sci-fi statistics!

As long as Hollywood treats writing as an irrelevant frill, they'll continue making movies not fit to run at 3 am on the Sci fi channel.@@@0 -I saw Dick Tracy when I was very young. I didn't know who any of the actors were, and I didn't know the movie would turn out different than the way it was previewed. I sure loved it though.

Warren Beatty stars as the crime-fighting 1930's detective Dick Tracy who goes after the biggest mob bosses in the city. This time, Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) has killed a very powerful man and is out to take over the city with his singer girlfriend Breathless Mahoney (Madonna) who has her eye on Tracy. It becomes even worse because a new criminal is invading and the worst part is: this criminal has no face. He or she is very unknown. Plus, the famous villians are back from the comic book collection.

I thought that this movie was very colorful and creative. It was entertaining and fun to watch especially as a child. Warren Beaty was just like James Bond of the 1930's the way he played Dick Tracy.

An ensemble cast of the film includes: Charlie Korsmo, Glenn Headly, William Forsythe, Dustin Hoffman, James Caan, Ed O' Ross, Tommy Lee Jones, Mandy Patinkin, Charles Durning. Plus More!

Dick Tracy is a movie for all ages and is a fun movie for a family to enjoy. Take my word for it.@@@1 -A pretty average scifi film. The plot was more or less obvious from the start. Although the acting was reasonably good, the writing seemed very cliched, using ideas taken from numerous films.

The basic plot: Scientists working on a deep space research platform rescue a fighter from crashing into the red dwarf that they have been orbitting. Onboard they find a stasis pod, which coincidently malfunctions at that very moment. After 2 or 3 minutes of the man in the pod waking up, you realise that he is a complete lunatic. Something which totally escapes the 3 person crew of the research ship...

After that it becomes a rip off every other film involving a psychotic madman terrorising innocent victims, overall I think Speed 2 was a better exploration of the subject matter, which I didn't consider to be a good film either.

Not a good film, get Aliens out and watch that again.

@@@0 -Most successful comic book movies usually depend on having villains that are bigger than life, ready to jump off the screen and strangle you alive with a smile or a demented line or two of dialog. The Tim Burton Batmans had it, as did (in an even more grotesque manner) Sin City. With Dick Tracy producer/director/star Warren Beatty piles on the villains until it becomes part of the framework. Like a boisterous homage to 1930s gangster pictures- only this time meant for kids as opposed to the darker Bonnie and Clyde- Dick Tracy is filled, joyfully, with archetypes and bright, primary colors, where the criminals carry tommy guns and are formed on their faces to shape their personalities. Villains like The Stooge, Shoulders, Lips, The Brow, Mumbles, the Blank, Pruneface, Spud. Chester Gould gave the names to his characters that fit their profiles, and gave his hero a jaw that could cut glass. The film is a continuation of sight gags that are perfectly taken seriously.

If, at the time, movies like Batman and (underrated) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were darker depictions of reality within a comic-book outline, Dick Tracy is more 'old-school'. It's a story of cops and crooks, or rather A cop, detective Tracy as he tries to bust Big Boy (Al Pacino, in what is arguably his BIGGEST performance to date, and in a sense the one that makes sense for his grandiose style), but with no such luck. There's also a little kid, called simply the Kid (Charlie Korsmo, who somehow brings more spunk to this little kid than would've been imagined), and Tracy's love interest in Tess. And then there's the nightclub 'dame' (Madonna, who probably doesn't give any kind of great acting performance, but maybe that suits the role fine, and she sings excellently when called upon), who wont testify unless Tracy admits feelings he doesn't have for her. Then there's convoluted dealings with taking Tracy down, and a mysterious masked figure with a scraggly voice.

Meantime, as if doing an impersonation of a Howard Hawks film in a splash of visual effects and bigger explosions, Dick Tracy adds on the wink-and-nod comedy and the action like its syrup on a tall stack of pancakes. It's a wonder to look at this world, which is created in ways that have a fascination to them that had they been done today would just be simply by proxy of computers (i.e. Sin City, which can be justifiably compared to Beatty's film). We're driven through this world in great big shots and then thrust in the plot line, or whatever there is of it, in big editing montages with camera angles that seem to come out of those little tilted panels in the comics of old. I'm almost reminded of the Cotton Club during these sequences, as story, music, detail, and a few BIG punches and gun-shots go a long way to revealing what needs to be said, which, actually, isn't more than it needs to. And there's a heap-load of catchy dialog from the script (one of my favorites: "the enemy of my enemy is... my enemy", plus any of Pacino's references to other figures in quotes).

Revisiting this after seeing it for the first time in the movie theater (and only remembering little bits), Dick Tracy is a hard-boiled fantasy to the finest degree. It's filled with good cheer for the kids, and with some pretty good action squared away without some of the more sinister intent of its cousin comic-book movies (i.e. PG-13 fare), and for the adults its throw-back central done with panache and a solid feeling for the unsubtle. Even Dustin Hoffman hams it up, and he barely says an audible word!@@@1 -On a distant planet a psychopath is saved from execution by a space monk. He releases a few fellow inmates and breaks out of the prison in a spaceship. They dock onto a ludicrously enormous spacecraft that is orbiting a supernova star. This massive craft is populated by only three people, presumably because the budget of the film did not extend to hiring many actors. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the three goodies end up in a game of cat and mouse with the baddies.

The psychopath in this movie is curious in that he is annoying. 'Annoying' is generally not a term one would use to describe a lunatic - unhinged, frightening, dangerous maybe but not 'annoying' but he is. The three people manning the giant ship are seriously unconvincing as warranting such important roles - this ship is practically the size of a city! Considering that the film is set approximately 50 years in the future, it is somewhat optimistic that such a huge man-made craft could exist, never mind the fact that it is used for such a relatively mundane task. Despite the vast size of the spaceship, the crew all have appallingly kitted out, tiny rooms and the dining room consists of what appears to be a plastic table and chairs. But there are a lot of corridors.

The film is fairly well acted and it works as an averagey sci-fi thriller. But nothing great.@@@0 -Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the "Breathless" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than "What about bob?". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours.@@@1 -Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.

The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained.@@@0 -Rachel Griffiths writes and directs this award winning short film. A heartwarming story about coping with grief and cherishing the memory of those we've loved and lost. Although, only 15 minutes long, Griffiths manages to capture so much emotion and truth onto film in the short space of time. Bud Tingwell gives a touching performance as Will, a widower struggling to cope with his wife's death. Will is confronted by the harsh reality of loneliness and helplessness as he proceeds to take care of Ruth's pet cow, Tulip. The film displays the grief and responsibility one feels for those they have loved and lost. Good cinematography, great direction, and superbly acted. It will bring tears to all those who have lost a loved one, and survived.@@@1 -this film was shrouded in scandal for so long that it became a very sought after item...the outrage, the mystery, etc. it had everything to be a great piece of film-making, but ultimately fails in every extent. it's a terribly bad comedy, a pathetic horror movie, a lame erotic film.

the 2 disc DVD includes a gorgeous booklet with stills, interviews, essays on bestiality, etc. as well as an extensive interview with the more-than-pretentious director. for those who have heard about it but never seen it, the package will seem fantastic until one actually sees the film. disc 1 contains the edited film, badly translated to English but with good visual quality. disc 2 contains the director's cut, in an awful transfer, in french.

what can I say about the actual beast? a hand puppet of Kermit the frog would have been more effective and shocking.@@@0 -Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.

The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's "messed up" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than "breathless" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.

To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me.@@@1 -I saw this on DVD ( It`s known as CORRUPT in this format ) and the blurb on the casing really hyped up how Harvey Keitel`s character Frank is so much like the one he played BAD LIEUTENANT in " This gritty and powerful police thriller " . What the casing didn`t mention was that this is an old Italian movie . How old is it Theo ? Well when a character plays music he doesn`t put on the CD player , he pulls out a big plastic pancake thing , puts it on a sort of revolving hob where a sort of mechanical arm touches the pancake thingy causing music to be heard . You see my point about this being an old film ? The DVD case gave no clue this was a movie made 20 years ago . It`s also a film with poor production values like so many other Italian films masquerading as American ones . With the exception of Keitel the cast are awful though Johnny Rotten`s performance is bizarre rather than terrible , the cinematography is static with the picture and sound quality giving the impression that I was watching a fourth generation pirate copy ( I don`t know if it`s down to a dodgy DVD or if it`s a very bad film print ) and worst of all is Ennio Morricone`s score . It`s impossible to belive the man who did the irritating intrusive incidental music for CORRUPT is the same one who did the music for those Clint Eastwood westerns.

All of this is a pity because CORRUPT does have its moments . It`s by no means the greatest psycho thriller ever devised but it did hold my interest and as always Keitel puts in a good performance as a violent nutcase cop . Just a pity the rest of the movie didn`t match up to his high standards@@@0 -The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.

Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as "Big Boy" Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.

The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him "the Bath." James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.

This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business.@@@1 -Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film.

The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.@@@0 -Dick Tracy is one of my all time favorite films. I must admit to those that haven't seen it. You will either really love it or really hate it. It came out a year after the success of Batman. So everyone's expectations were so high that many were let down simply because the plot is so simple. But its based on a comic strip...what did you expect? Creatively, this movie is amazing! The sets, make-up, music, costumes, and the impressive acting make this film fantastic. The film has bloodless violence and no bad language - that's something rare these days. Directed, produced, and stars Warren Beatty as the ace crime fighter going up against Al Pacino's evil Big Boy Caprice and his mob of thugs. Madonna steals the show as the seductive Breathless Mahoney. This is one of the best characters Madonna has ever played. She has the best one liners I've heard! Madonna fans would love it! One of the coolest things about the film is that they only used seven colors to make it look like a comic strip. This film is truly a piece of artwork that is sadly overlooked by the public. To sum things up, this film brings out the child in all of us. It's a film that will leave you smiling at the end.@@@1 -I thought Harvey Keitel, a young, fresh from the Sex Pistols John Lydon, then as a bonus, the music by Ennio Morricone. I expected an old-school, edgy, Italian cop thriller that was made in America. Istead, I got a mishmash story that never made sense and a movie that left me saying: WTF!!! Too many unanswered questions, and not enough action. The result: a potential cult classic got flushed down the toilet. Keitel and Lydon work well together, so maybe Quentin Tarantino can reunite these guys with better script. Oh, and the Morricone score: OK, but not memorable.

Overall, not a waste of time, but not a "must see", unless you are a hardcore Keitel fan.@@@0 -I thoroughly enjoyed this true to form take on the Dick Tracy persona. This is a well done product that used modern technology to craft a imagery filled comic era story. If you are a fan of or recently watched some of the old Dick Tracy b&w movies then you're sure to get a kick out of this rendition. The pastel colors and larger than life characters rendered in a painstakingly authentic take on an era gone by is entertainment as it's meant to be. I personally find Madonna's musical element to be a major part of this film-the CD featuring her music from this movie is one I've listened to often over the years, it's just so well done and performed musically and tuned to that era. In my mind, Madonna's finest moment both on-screen but especially musically. This is sure to bring out the "kid" in you.@@@1 -TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).

Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.@@@0 -Dick Tracy is easily the best comic book based movie made to date. The movie has the same feel as the comic book, staying true to the color scheme. The Batman series has climbed, fallen, climbed and fallen again. Dick Tracy has true staying power as something that both adults and children can enjoy. The good guys triumph over evil, without blood and gore to get the point across. Al Pacino does a wonderful job of his own adaptation of Big Boy Caprice and Madonna is memorable as Breathless. But the best job by far is Warren Beatty who just epitomizes Dick Tracy just as he did with Clyde Barrows. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD on April 2, 2002, my tape is wearing thin.@@@1 -This tear-teaser, written by Steve Martin himself, is so unbelievably bad, it makes you sick to your stomach!

The plot is pathetic, the acting awful, and the dialogue is even more predictable than the ending.

Avoid at all costs!@@@0 -Don't look for an overdeveloped plotline here....just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy this one. A gallery of stars pop up as the classic cartoon character's villains in this live action comedy, which features incredible makeup and set design, not to mention knockout performances from Beatty, Madonna, and Pacino. Great fun for kids and adults alike.

*** out of ****@@@1 -This film is a flagrant rip-off of one of the best novels of all time, Silas Marner by George Eliot.

The details of the film shown on IMDb do give acknowledgement to the original authoress but I did not see this at the beginning of the film, only a credit at the end of it saying "suggested by the book Silas Marner". Suggested? It was nothing but a complete rip- off of all the essential elements of the story:

A wronged and sad old man, an artisan, poor and lonely, has all his money stolen. One night a child wanders up to his door as her mother lies dying in the snow outside. The man takes her in and brings her up until one day the local squire (or rich politician here) demands to adopt the child. It is he who has fathered the child during an illicit affair years before. The battle then ensues as to who should have legal custody of the child.

In this and every other aspect of the film, the story is exactly the same. In only one can I find a difference. Silas Marner had epilepsy - but perhaps that would have strained the acting abilities of Mr Martin too far. On top of that he has his hair dyed in some carrot juice concoction (presumably to make him look younger, but actually making him look more the clown that he is)! There is also the addition of meaningless jokes, that this offbeat comedian cannot resist bringing into the story which have no part in it and only detract from the profoundness of the story. Like when the child cries in the courthouse declaring she can only be happy with the man who has fathered her all these years. This is conveyed in the film by the girl applying nasal decongestant to the bridge of her nose to make her tearful!

I am surprised that legalities and integrity within the film industry permit such a film to be made. If I was a trustee of George Eliot's I would insist on reparation. If I was Steve Martin I would send the profits to that estate, or to the poor. At the very least it should be entitled Silas Marner - adapted by S Martin. Or better still removed from the archives!

If you are interested in this story - and I hope you are - dismiss this completely and watch Silas Marner. Or read the book! The BBC made an excellent adaptation of it in the 1980's.@@@0 -I never attended the midnight showing of a movie before "Dick Tracy" came out.

I still have the "t-shirt ticket" I had to wear to get admitted to the showing around here somewhere and, like that shirt, "Dick Tracy" has stuck with me ever since.

If you've seen the movie, the sharp visuals, bright primary colors and strong characters have no doubt been etched into your brain. It's a wonder to behold.

As director/star/co-writer/producer, Beatty knows what works in a film and shows it here, taking a familiar American icon and re-creating him for a whole new era. Still set in the '30s, "Tracy" has a kind of timeless quality like all good films do. I've lost track of how many times I've watched "Tracy" and I still catch something new every time I do.

The others are all top notch, starting with Pacino's Big Boy Caprice (a reminder that he can do comedy with the best of them), even Madonna's Breathless Mahoney is a relevation in that under the right environment, she can act (GASP!).

But there's still such themes touched on as the necessity of family, keeping true to one's self, good versus evil, even Machiavellian themes are explored. Odd for a comic strip film, but hey, it works.

All in all, "Dick Tracy" is a classic unto itself. Compared with other films of this decade, it makes a strong statement. It's a good, strong film that doesn't depend on blood, violence, profanity or nudity to make its point.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

Ten stars. Great Scott!@@@1 -There is something kind of sad about seeing someone who is so good at doing something try to do something very different ... and end up being mediocre. I was thinking about Jordan playing baseball, but the same applies to Steve Martin.

This movie is reasonably well acted and directed, but the script is a stinker. Martin did a great job adapting a classic story into a comedy in "Roxanne", but this effort to bring a Victorian drama to the contemporary scene smacks straight into a wall of implausibility. If you want to see an old story updated with some style, best to rent "Great Expectations".@@@0 -If Dick Tracy was in black and white, the pope wouldn't be religious. Giving a new sense to the concept of color in a movie, we are offered an unique experience throughout a comic-strip world, and it's one of the few movies which succeeded in doing so, thanks to a serious script, good direction, great performances (Al Pacino is astonishing) and most importantly a powerful mix of cinematography, art direction and costume design. Using only primary colors, the experience is quite different from anything we have seen before. And there is also a quite successful hommage to all the gangster-movie genre, pratically extinct from modern cinema. Overall, I see this movie as a fresh attempt and a touch of originality to a cinema which relies more and more on the old and already-seen formulas. 7 out of 10.@@@1 -Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.

Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.

Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.@@@0 -"Dick Tracy" is one of our family's favorites -- the actors are great -- the art direction is exceptional -- the music is magic. It's not supposed to be "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- it's a fun experience.

Stephen Sondhemim's songs are stellar: "Back in Business" is energetic, "Sooner or Later" is just right, "What Can You Lose" is haunting -- even tunes like "Live Alone and Like It" add to the story

Got to love the giddily over-the-top performances of Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Glenn Headly, Charlie Korsmo, Mandy Patinkin, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, supporting villains... The list is far too long. And, yes -- even Madonna and Warren Beatty are awesome. Written with a smile a minute (how many times have we looked at each other and said, "Wait a minute -- I'm having a thought -- it's gone!"?).

However, one of most telling things about in this film is that everyone involved seems to be having a good time -- and that above all adds to the enjoyment for the viewer. So, if you haven't already, why not give "Dick Tracy" a chance -- accept it for what it is -- a Sunday comic strip brought to life -- and in a wonderful way!!@@@1 -A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.

'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.

One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. "My name's Shocky," says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.

I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys.@@@0 -I've been watching "Dick Tracy" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.

Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.

There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as "Mumbles," and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.

Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.

Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars.@@@1 -I wandered into this movie after watching the 82-minute "Borat" tonight, and left quite disappointed. I was a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit, and routinely go to see animated films. That being said, I found myself nodding off and at one point nearly walked out, but stayed waiting for this film to get better. Never happened.

The visuals are stunning and the voice work is top notch, especially in my opinion, that of Kate Winslet and Ian McKellen (I had to remind myself a few times the bulbous headed lizard villain was Gandalf and Magneto). The problem with this movie for me is it's one of those animated features for the ADD-set. It registers after the fact as one zany slapstick routine after another, weighed down by a treacle filled plot that pulls out every stop in an attempt to convey an "Important Message." It looks a lot like busted Oscar bait for the animated category, and considering the way it's scoring with critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gets it wrong and offers up its hardware. But if you're looking for an enjoyable animated feature about rats, take my advice and wait for Ratatouille.@@@0 -I hope she can keep acting and directing. She's surely up to the task and could easily develop that visionary streak into a long career of unconventional and rare works of art. Her work has a rare kind of generosity and her timing is spot-on! Oy I'm kvell@@@1 -This movie is little more than poorly-made, fetish porn, and this is saying a lot considering the similar crap that was made in that era. This was recommended to me by friend as a "unique film experience." He was right. I suppose he meant that as a joke. Not disgusting, not even that shocking. Just mediocre acting and poor attempts at shock art. A little bit of camp value, though I don't believe the makers of this film intended this. And yes, as a previous reviewer mentioned, it's sex with a guy in a bear suit. Don't spend a lot of money on this. Try to borrow it, if you must see it. Or contact me, I'd be happy to sell you my copy for half price.

I may have to see another of this particular director's films, as he seems to have a certain following. But if it's anything like this, I will again regret another 2 hours of my life gone forever.@@@0 -This is amazing-looking movie with the whole thing done in just six or seven colors. When it came out over 15 years ago, it stunned audiences with its color scheme, being so different from anything else that had ever been put on film. Those colors, for me at least, make this an absolutely fascinating film to watch. There are literally thousands of scenes I wish could freeze and somehow convert them to a painting to study for their artwork.

The characters and the story don't match up to the greatness of the photography, but they are all over-the-top, especially the villains. The famous actors who played them here must have a had a lot of fun on the set playing "Flatop," "Pruneface," "Lips," "Mumbles," etc.

Meanwhile, Warren Beatty and Gleanne Hedley are good as Dick Tracey and girlfriend Tess Truehart, and she's as sweet and soft as her name. Another good addition is Charlie Korsmo as the delinquent young boy Dick and Tess take under their wing. The colorful other characters are played by Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, William Forysthe, Paul Sorvino, Mandy Patinkin, Madona and other names you know but are too numerous to list here. Check the full credits on the main page and you'll amazed.

The only negatives I found were Pacino's voice which grates on you after awhile, Madonna's off-key singing voice and the fact that the film would have been better trimmed about 10 minutes. Those "faults" are all minor because overall, this is a fun movie....a cartoon strip coming to life in an incredibly-colorful fashion.....like nothing you have ever seen.@@@1 -OK maybe a 13 year old like me was a little to old for this movie. Its about this pampered rat, who lives in a palace. Then a sewer rat flushes him down a toilet! He ends up in this rat city and meets this girl rat who has a gem a greedy frog wants. He will do anything for this gem he sends a whole army after these two rats.He plans to take the gem and to flood rat city! THe cool part about this movie is the slugs. They do all the sound effects. They sing, make noises, its awesome, its also pretty funny. OK bottom line, it is aimed at 7 year olds. Other wise, a great movie to take a younger family member to see. I didn't think the animation was real dreamworks art though, more like WAllace and Gromit. i thinkthey slacked a little on that. The movie was just decent, not worth spending $9.50 for though, sorry.@@@0 -Despite gorgeous and breathtaking animation, this is probably one of most uninspiring Disney films I've seen, and I don't slam Disney films very often. Spirit is a wild stallion who repeatedly gets captured, either by the cavalry or by Indians, both of which try to "break" him. Spirit ends up forming a bond with the Indian, and that, in a nutshell, is the story. With exception to the beautiful animation of the horses, neither I or my five year old were very inspired or excited by this film. It's ironic that it's titled "Spirit", as spirit is what this film could have used a bit more of. An extra point was given for the soundtrack, which was enjoyable, with songs by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer. And although this film is rated G, you will still probably have to end up explaining what "breaking a horse" means to your five year old. I did.

@@@1 -Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.

I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.

Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little.@@@0 -Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).

Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in "The Departed" was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did "Spirit". I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.

Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.

I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.

OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...

Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck!@@@1 -From the creators of Shrek………….. OK, that grabbed my attention.

Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.

And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.

That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.

The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.

But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.

Despite that I dint like this flick.

I am completely disappointed. 4/10@@@0 -White man + progress + industrialization = BAD. First nations + nature + animals = GOOD. Simple formula. Actually, in past days the same kind of propaganda was used to defend the status quo; now it is used to attack it. However, that being said, I think the movie does succeed in overcoming hackneyed politicization because it plays to the themes of freedom and original nature in a way that appeals to everyone. You may not be onside with the movie's rubbishy revisionism of how the West was won, er lost. But anyone can feel a sense of longing for the days when horses could run free on the Western plains. (The movie also conveniently sidesteps the fact that there were no horses in America before the evil white man brought them there). Anyway, I liked it. The quality of the animation - especially the opening shot - is incredible.@@@1 -So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek."@@@0 -I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though.@@@1 -Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low.@@@0 -While I had wanted to se this film since the first time I watched the trailer, I was in for a deep surprise with this film. While some of the elements and actions of the characters seemed a little too ‘cartoonish,' the dark nature of the film really makes this a much different experience. Instead of the feel-good-happy-story, this film takes you in another direction that proves to be uplifting, but also disturbing. Most kids won't understand some of the darker moments in the film, which makes this film rather watchable for adults. I was also impressed with the cinematography, using animation and digital animation to create a seamless network of pans and tilts. The musical score was once again solid, proving Hans Zimmer is the go-to guy when it comes to animated scores, and I never thought I would say I actually enjoyed Brian Adams' music.@@@1 -Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.

Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!@@@0 -This animated movie is a masterpiece! The narration, music, animation, and storyline where all remarkable. My girlfriend and I saw it again for a second time and we got more insight from it. We invited a couple friends to see Spirit with us and they really enjoyed it a lot. When I asked them to come along to see it, they thought it was a movie about horses, but afterwards they realized it was more than that. I liked Esperanza, Spirit, Rain, and Lil' Creek, who reminds me of Nathan Chasing Horse who is Smiles A Lot in Dances With Wolves. Spirit has deep symbolic meanings and metaphors that I found to be empowering and inspirational.

I saw Spirit for a third time and I want to go see it again. I enjoyed "Spirit" tremendously because its portrayal of American Indians is realistic, dignified, and non-stereotypical unlike the movie "The Road to El Dorado", which was a total farce because it portrayed American Indians in a disrespectful and stereotypical way. But Dreamworks has redeemed themselves by making Spirit a great movie that I found to be acceptable! I hope they continue to make more animated movies like Spirit, and I would like to see sequels or spinoffs to Spirit if its done respectfully and without stereotyping American Indians.

I highly recommend this to others who have an open mind to go and pay to see Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.@@@1 -Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.

Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.

The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.@@@0 -This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.

One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. "Spirit" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so.

"Spirit" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it.@@@1 -Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.

Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.

I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-@@@0 -This is one of the most calming, relaxing, and beautifully made animation films I've ever seen. With beautiful music throughout the movie, the sounds and music can make you feel like you're in the movie! This movie is not just great for kids, but adults too. It teaches you lessons, such as never forget who you are, you can do whatever you stick your mind to, and to brave and daring. This movie can make you cry at times too, which is always a nice touch in movies. This movie is funny, sad, cute, and keeps you on the edge of your seat! Some movies really give you a fuzzy feeling after you see them, and the movie "Spirit" is definitely one of them! With my vote of 9/10 stars for animation, music, and a wonderful idea for a movie, it gave me a whole lot of Spirit!@@@1 -If your idea of entertainment is watching graphic footage of people being run over by cars (you get to see a woman passing under the front wheel, being twisted as the car passes over her before she goes under the back wheel -- and they show it twice in case you missed it the first time) then this is the documentary for you. Admitedly I didn't watch any more of this very disturbing piece of voyeurism, but that was enough for me. Maybe the rest is even better.

I wonder how long it's going to take for television networks to start showing slush movies. Perhaps game shows based on self-mutilation might be nice.

I already know that there are disturbed people in the world and that horrible things happen. I don't need to see the proof on the TV masquerading as entertainment.@@@0 -This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.

The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.

I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household.@@@1 -"The Cat's Meow" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible.

Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in "Paper Moon", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., "Yes, We Have No Bananas"). When Hearst insists everybody "Charleston, Charleston!" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot.

The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.@@@0 -A man readjusts to life alone after 45 years of marriage. He also has to solve the problem of the family milch cow, Tulip, which refuses to allow itself to be milked. Until, that is, he visualizes his wife who was the one who used to milk Tulip.

Tulip is based on a real story told in Griffith's family, of her grandparents' generation. The film is a nostalgic look back at a disappearing way of life, one where people still felt some sense of responsibility for each other, set in the lush green Victorian (the Australian state, not the era) countryside.

Writer and director Griffiths evidently has further ambitions in both areas, and this multiple award-winning 15-minute short is a fine beginning to her reel.@@@1 -This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the "American" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this "sexy beast," if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.@@@0 -I recently watched Spirit and enjoyed it very much, I've seen it about 4 times now on HBO and will buy the DVD. Those who gave negative reviews would probably think that `Vanishing Point' was just another car chase movie and `Thelma & Louise' was just another chick flick. Although the conclusions of those films are darker I feel the themes are somewhat related; that freedom and individualism are very important and that there is usually someone wanting to take it away from you. The other common trait of these movies is the caring, thoughtful `guardian angel' types who help the main characters to overcome adversity.

Another review here mentions how this film relates to the theme of civilization invading someone else's home. All one has to do is look around at the dwindling open areas around us to see that.

I thought the animation and the story were amazing, the animators really got the horses to look, act and move naturally. Spirit's emotions were very clear as the story progressed (yes I'm aware they do humanize the horses a bit, but this is fiction). In a couple of action scenes you feel caught in the current of the rapids and the heat from a forest fire. In other more quiet scenes (which are most of the time) you're allowed to savor the backgrounds. One of the big things that make the story really work is by not going the talking, singing animals route. Doing so would take away from the story's power. Instead the flow of the story is told by occasional narration by the main character, further punch is added by the fantastic soundtrack. Another plus is that they weren't afraid to give the story somewhat of a dark side (which really made this film watchable to me). This isn't prevalent through the entire movie though, and the conclusion is fitting and uplifting without being sappy.

Those who appreciate horses will really like this movie, but I think it's a bit more than a horse movie. I don't feel this would be a good movie to take children to if they're brought up on the inane fare that's offered up today. But if they're the thoughtful sort that can handle compelling stories like The Lord of the Rings and Black Beauty they'll likely love this movie. Hell, I'm 35 years old and STILL love that stuff.@@@1 -Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."

Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?

We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.

The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.

And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.

What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.

The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.

This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well.@@@0 -This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.

I think the title says it all, "spirit". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end.

Enjoy "Spirit" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too.@@@1 -What happened to Peter Bogdanovich? Once a brilliant director, a trail blazer... is now scraping the very bottom... Is this the same man who directed "The Last Picture Show"? Here, he takes a somewhat interesting (albeit farfetched) premise, and turns it into bubble gum that loses flavor the moment you take the first bite... Dunst is not bad, but Izzard is miscast as Chaplin, and all the other actors seem to have been cast for their "looks", and not because they were right for the part. Too bad. I'll go rent "Paper Moon" again.@@@0 -I thought this movie would be dumb, but I really liked it. People I know hate it because Spirit was the only horse that talked. Well, so what? The songs were good, and the horses didn't need to talk to seem human. I wouldn't care to own the movie, and I would love to see it again. 8/10@@@1 -Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film.@@@0 -Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is an overall wonderful movie. The blending of animation types is unique, the storyline is amazing, and the music is wonderful.

The drawn animation is a special thing about many animations. How they expressed the characters, especially the horses, through their animation are spectacular especially. While the way horses communicate through body language is easy to understand, many young children and people who haven't studied horses might not understand. Without words, I would imagine it would have to be challenging to express them through the features. Because of this, I understand the 'eyebrow' they added to the horses (while real horses don't have those thick lines). One of the few things I noticed about horse habits that might have been portrayed strangely is that Spirit lead his mother's herd. In wild horse herds, the lead stallion usually chases the young colts out.

Also, while some people might think portraying the white army officers as the 'bad guys' is stereotyping, think of all the movies in which the Native Americans have been portrayed as that. Sometimes back then; they did treat mustangs very poorly. For example, in real history, the Appaloosa breed was almost wiped out due to the Army officers. Imagine what would have happened to one of the worlds best loved riding breeds if the Native Americans had not saved them.

I think it's amazing how the realism wasn't subtracted by making the horses talk to each other. Spirit's feelings were expressed by a little bit of narration, but mostly through the music (by Bryan Adams). The songs express the story really well, and Hans Zimmer and Bryan Adams did a great job telling the story through melodies and lyrics.

The emotion I got when watching the movie, whether the first time or the twentieth (yes, I've watched it that much), you wouldn't believe. Some of the scenes take your breath away, while others seem to force tears into your eyes. The opening sequence, showing Spirit's homeland, puts you right into the spectacular action right away.

I don't understand at all why some people are so hateful of this brilliant movie. Overall, I rate it a 10/10 - a must watch.@@@1 -Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.@@@0 -I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.

What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.

What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.

Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.

One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to.@@@1 -Anyone who is a sucker for 1920s jazz, 1920s dress, the Charleston, and ultra-swanky yachts (e.g. me, on all counts) will want to like this movie. But the sad fact is that that's all there is. The plot is banal and obvious, the acting mostly either awful or playing to the farcical side of the goings-on, and when the whole thing's over there is not much left but the impression of mirrors and smoke. This is a beautifully made bad movie.@@@0 -I really dislike both Shrek films. (Since their both "PG" and have words in them I would never say myself, so I disliked them.)

But when it comes to "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," which I just barely watched for the first time last month, I became a fan of animated films, other than Pixar. ***Spoilers ahead*** In "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," a horse foal is born and eventually becomes the leader of his heard. One night, he sees a strange light in the distance, and he sets off toward it. This action eventually leads to his capture, and several more things. Throughout the movie, we hear a narration. It's through the thoughts of Spirit, though the horses never talk. This is what makes the movie so goo. They (the movie makers) recored real horses to do the sounds the horses made; none of those sounds were made by humans.

Spirit meets Rain, a beautiful mare, and Little Creek, a native-American, who owns Rain. Little Creek later frees Spirit and Rain, they go running home.

I have never been a big fan of Brian Adams, but I intend to buy the soundtrack to this film in the near future.

Watch this film, and you won't regret it. My Score: 10/10@@@1 -...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.@@@0 -I liked this movie a lot. The animation was well done and the romance was cute. I liked most of Bryan Adams' songs and the Hans Zimmer score was excellent. What a lot of people don't realize is how well it relates to the Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now themes (what happens when so-called "civilization" invades someone elses home, what does it mean to be "civilized" etc.). The opening scenery and music were very stirring. The film is a lament to an America that was once beautiful.@@@1 -After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.

I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.

So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.@@@0 -The horse is indeed a fine animal. Picturesque depictions of wild horses and their grace could never have been more majestic in an animation flick.

The animation is simply stupendous. The fine animation forms the backbone of the beauty that the horses embolden across the flick. More so when the stallion traverses diverse terrain, jumps across cliffs and braves waters.

Soundtrack too is very impressive. The wonderful instrumental music lures you to appreciate the movie.

"They say the story of the west was written from the saddle of a horse . " huh? Well ,The story of a fine horse sure was written from the saddle of the west .

All in all, this movie is clearly up there with the best .It is one of the best animation flicks i have watched. Would be a very fine choice on a lonely night. An easy 9/10.@@@1 -I am appalled at how bad this film is. As a pastiche of early 20th century Hollywood artistes it sets a new low - even past The Moderns or (gasp) Cradle Will Rock & I never thought I'd see a film worse than those 2. Granted they were about a slightly different milieu & period. Nevertheless the intents & results were distressingly similar.

First off there's the horrible casting: Eddie Izzard as CHAPLIN? Excuse me? Peter, did you owe this guy something? Jennifer Tilly as Loulla Parsons?? Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies??? Holy smoke, these people don't even begin to try to capture the look or sound of the period they are purportedly depicting.

Well, Last Picture Show was a decent film, but this thing is a disaster & the rest of Bogdonovitch's pics haven't been much better. Guess rubbing up against Welles & Hitch & Ford wore off a long time ago. Still good for hosting TCM though.@@@0 -Well, what can I say, this movie really got to me, it's not so bad, as many say, I really loved it, although the idea seems so simple, and rather boring, it isn't. First of all I enjoyed the soundtrack (Bryan Adams), it really goes with the movie. Second the simple story, and the drama of Spirit gets your attention. One thing I like the most is that they didn't give the stallion a human voice to interact with the other horses, it makes the movie more realistic, not many animations seem realistic now do they ?, but... I don't know, making animals talk is just so... lame.

One of the most beautiful animations of 2002 in my opinion, I recommend it to everyone, not just the kids :), because it is very relaxing.@@@1 -What is supposed to be a simple generic mystery plot involving a dead philanthropist is, in fact, a head-ache inducing tale about a bunch of characters (the only big actor being Ginger Rogers, in a very early role) all trying to find the murderer among a small cast of residents in a posh apartment building. These characters range from utterly stupid to downright mean. As a cheap, low budget production, most of the action revolves around Rogers and her lead man (some guy, I don't care who he is 'cause he really sucked) talking about their various possibilities of solving the crime, while being constantly cut off by an absurd detective with his head in his butt. Honestly, I've never had a worse time watching an old b-rate movie of this type, and I've seen some real head-slappers.

Oh, and the butler didn't do it, because there wasn't a butler. But pay attention to the guy who's closest to a butler. There ya go.

--PolarisDiB@@@0 -If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.@@@1 -A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.

Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.

It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.

Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.@@@0 -Some time in the late 19th century, somewhere in the American West, several cowboys in need of money go on a buffalo hunt. The group's leader believes that buffaloes are too numerous for the hunting to have any impact, but the more experienced hunter has seen how quickly the population can collapse, and he isn't so sure. Featuring buffalo herds living in South Dakota and showing film of actual hunting (the movie's introduction explains it as necessary thinning of the herd), the movie does an excellent job of presenting us with the plight of the buffalo and its effect on Native Americans without ever getting preachy about it.

The real story, however, is about the dysfunctional family which is created by the small group formed to do the hunting. The father figure is Charlie, a violent man with a short fuse. Sandy, his "brother", is the experienced hunter who is tired of killing but needs the job after losing his cattle. A half-Indian boy, who hates the fact that he looks entirely Caucasian, takes the role of adopted son. The grandfather (and moral compass) is an alcoholic buffalo skinner; Charlie's "wife" is an Indian woman whose companions he killed after they stole his horses.

Charlie is clearly the most interesting figure. He is mean and insulting towards everyone around him, yet at the same time he knows that they are the only family and friends that he has. He expects the abducted Indian women to hate him, then accept him, but he doesn't know how to react when she refuses to do either. He's the one who put the family together in the first place, but he's also the one who is fated to ultimately destroy it.

This is all very similar to the classic "Red River", which also features a family of sorts being torn apart by the increasingly violent and alienated father figure. As one might expect, this movie suffers by comparison. The plot is not as focused on developing the characters and family dynamics, and the direction fails to keep all of the scenes working towards this common goal. Charlie is so thoroughly unlikable from the very beginning that we never have any reason to care about what happens to him or his family. On the positive side, however, the message surrounding the buffalo slaughter adds an extra dimension to the film and its conclusion is far superior to the Hollywood ending which was tacked on to the end of "Red River". As a result, "The Last Hunt" is an interesting and entertaining film, very well made, but falling short of what would be needed to consider it a classic.@@@1 -this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.

the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.

i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.

the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.

no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings...@@@0 -I have probably seen this movie over fifty times by now because of the kids they just cant get enough of Spirit. The best thing about the movie I think is that the animals isn't able to talk, this makes the whole movie more honest and makes a better impression on both kids and the adults so 10/10 from the kids and me@@@1 -"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.

*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark@@@0 -In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the "Indomitable Spirit". If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you.@@@1 -This was a disappointment - none of the nuance of the original. The Brits just seem to be able to make a truly unsettling film with none of the over-the-top histrionics of the American version. The original series combined both creepy stories and subtlety of performance with great attention to lighting and settings. I have watched the series many times and am still enthralled.

Just another poor adaptation along the lines of the dreadful adaptation of "Cracker". Get hooked up with BBC America or BBC Canada and watch for such delights as Waking the Dead, Spooks, Silent Witness, and Judge John Deed. Watch the original Touching Evil, then look for "Wire in the Blood" for more of the truly understated, elegant performance of Robson Green. Hollywood needs to have a look at this actor!@@@0 -Spirit is a unique and original look at western life from the point of view of a wild horse, and native Americans. The film focuses on the friendships and perils that a wild horse, Spirit, encounters during his life.

Very well done in the presentation, using the technology available today to deliver stunning visuals that are breathtaking in their depth and realism.

The music is fantastic, with songs by Bryan Adams, and music by Hans Zimmer, who also was responsible for the extremely popular music from the 1994 Disney hit, The Lion King.

The story is not very deep but the fact that it isn't quite as in-depth as some movies doesn't in my opinion detract from the film as a whole.

An excellent film which I enjoyed immensely, and that is suitable for all the family. Not one to be missed. (10/10)@@@1 -This movie was supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.

Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.

The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both… STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a movie.@@@0 -Life Pod is one of those movies that you just watch and try not to analyze too hard. The acting is rather amateurish, at best. The special effects are obviously low budget, but not too bad. The story line is rather stock, but with an interesting twist. Computer run amok, but not exactly a computer and the running amok is very understandable when the truth is revealed. Still the movie has its moments and is quite watchable. For me, at least part of the allure of this movie is the prominent role of Kristine DeBell. She may not be the greatest actress in the world, but having been a former playmate of the month, she is cute enough. In all Life Pod is much like other low-budget Sci-Fi movies of the 1980s and somewhat predictable.

The White Star Lines bit is cute, if completely inaccurate. The last of the White Star Lines Company stock was purchased by the Cunard Lines 1947 and the last ship to sail under the White Star colors was the Britannic (not the sister of Titanic) which was sold for scrap in 1960.@@@1 -Let's face it, romantic comedies are considered lightweight when compared with dramatic movies (just look at the Academy Award nominations each year). But still, the good ones are truly an art form. Look at "When Harry Met Sally", "Sleepless In Seattle", and classics like "Roman Holiday" and "It Happened One Night". I like the good feeling of seeing two people destined to find happiness.

This movie attempts to construct something that resembles a romantic comedy. But no one believes the romance between the main characters, and there is nothing funny to make up for that major shortcoming. Modine is way past being a leading man - especially a romantic lead. I'm sure as Executive Producer, he had the means - but not the good sense - to cast himself. And Gershon...I see possibilities of some comedic talent, but she had no script and a poorly developed character. And whose idea was the English accent? Pointless.

Others have stated it, but I want to repeat: this story is poorly conceived, poorly executed; the actors are terribly miscast; and the characters, well, we just don't give a hoot about them.

An art form this ain't. Go rent "Moonstruck" again.@@@0 -I agree with "Jerry." It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not "rip-off") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his "mind", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all.@@@1 -For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two.

And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people.@@@0 -Wow. Something of a surprise. Though flawed, it is far better that I expected.

The brand new space liner Arcturus with some 3,000 passengers is in the final days of its sixteen day trip to Jupiter. Without warning, the ship's Cerebral (central computer) sounds a disaster alarm and orders everyone to evacuate.

Soon, there are only a handful of people remaining including one of the ship's astrogators (Penny), the captain (Cary), and the director of the shipping line (Kenyon).

It turns out that the alarm was false and that the main Cerebral is acting

erratically. The remaining passengers and crew must escape the ship and

avoid personal conflicts in order to survive.

The film starts out very well. The opening commercial is a very nice touch. There are obvious parallels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and to the historic

sinking of the Titanic. The film does slow down at times and has pacing

problems, but is generally well made and well acted.@@@1 -This is one of those movies that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!@@@0 -This movie can be described in those 2 words "just unbelievable". This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy.@@@1 -I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.@@@0 -A lot of people are saying that Al Pacino over acted but I mean common obviously for a movie role like this -- a cuban drug lord you need a bit of over acting in this role with that cuban accent. This movie overall was a really good movie I myself rated a 10/10 I would highly recommend people to watch this movie.@@@1 -Worst movie ever made!!! Please see the Real movie reviews from the pros on this movie.Check Rotten Tomatoes on the web for some good independent reviews on this film. The comments made on this site are apparently from folks with some financial interest in this film. I find the positive comments very misleading. I find it amazing how the negative comments are so bad against this movie and the positive comments sound like an Academy Awards Speech. Don't waste your hard earned money!!!!!! This Film is retarded!! I can't believe a film like this would ever be made. Why would Hollywood waste their time on such junk? This film is an attempt at nothing. I ask myself what looser would actually sink their money producing such trash. I went to blockbuster and the attendant even told us not to waste our time or money. I didn't listen and I did waste my time and cash. Please don't make the same mistake! It really is the "Worst movie ever made!"@@@0 -this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around.

Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet)

even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great.

this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy"@@@1 -I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!@@@0 -On MTV cribs all the ballers and shot callers pull the classic movie Scarface out of their DVD collection. This may give you an idea that Scarface is a "gangster movie". Sure, there are gangsters and mobs in it, but that's not the point of Scarface. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) is just a cuban refuge looking for a new way of life. He falls in with the mob group and becomes a well-known drug lord. Montana was all for doing what you wanted to do with your life. The classic phrase: "Say hello to my little friend!" is in Scarface. This quote is what always comes to mind when I think about Brian DePalmas movie, Scarface. This falls under my top 10 favorite movies. I would rate it ***1/2 (out of ****). Definitely a movie you must see. PHENOMENAL.@@@1 -Well, you'd better if you plan on sitting through this amateurish, bland, and pokey flick about a middle-aged widowed mom who has a little more in common with her young adult or old teen daughter than she would like. Set in Tunis, mom piddles around the flat, gets antsy, and decides, albeit reluctantly (she just can't help herself), to don the costume and dance in a local cabaret. Meanwhile her daughter is taking dancing lessons. The common denominator is a Tunisian band drummer. This film is so full of filler I watched the DVD at x2 and read the subtitles, fast forwarding through much of the very ordinary dancing and loooong shots of walking (they walk everywhere) and more walking and just plain dawdling at x4 just to get though this boring, uneventful, low budget flick which some how garnered some pretty good critical plaudits. Go figure. (C-)@@@0 -Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger switch the goodie-baddie roles they held in "All the brothers were valiant". Taylor seems a bit uncomfortable in his bad-guy role but Granger plays his part perfectly. However the real hero in the story are the bison and the northwest. The film is perfectly made, with the atmosphere of the times wonderfully given. The direction is taut and although the film is no light-hearted entertainment it is, to my way of thinking a major film, unjustly ignored by the cognoscenti.@@@1 -Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.

The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like "In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses".@@@0 -This movie has it all. It is a classic depiction of the events that surrounded the migration of thousands of Cuban refugees. Antonio Montana(played by Al Pacino), is just one of the thousands to get a chance to choose his destiny in America. This cinematic yet extremely accurate depiction of Miamis' Drug Empire is astonishing. Brian DePalma does an amazing job directing this picture, so much that, the viewer becomes involved with both the storyline, as well as every character in the cast. With Tony's characters' pressence being so believable and strong, Brian DePalma brang out the raw talent exposed by Steven Bauer(Manny, Tony's best Friend), Mary Elizabeth Mastantonio(Gina, Tony's Sister), Robert Loggia(Frank, Tony's Boss)and Michelle Pfeiffer(Elvira, Frank's Wife). I enjoyed every minute watching this movie, and still watch it on a weekly basis. On this year, the 20th Anniversary of this classic crime movie, I for one am a true believer that in another 20 years people will still refer to this movie in astonishing numbers. With other crime movies being so dramatic I find, this movie is a shock to the system.@@@1 -If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male@@@0 -This movie is very entertaining and is never ever boring even running at nearly 3 hours. Al Pacino, Michelle Phieffer and the rest of the cast are great in the film and are very believable. The violence was a little extreme in the film but then it showed how vicious the drug trade was at the time of the film. The ending is amazing and is probalby one of the coolest scenes ever. Great movie and you will probably really enjoy it.@@@1 -Just saw a pre-screening tonight. What can I say? It lived up to it's mediocre trailer run, though that's saying nothing at all. It did absolutely nothing that any movie before it hasn't done, and it played out in such a cliché fashion that eventually I got to the point where I stopped laughing only because I was laughing with the audience, and instead let the humorless movie play out.

So let's see... we have the less-than-spectacular main character that is trying to get back with his ex-girlfriend but he's not good enough for her, check. We have the three buddies that all have their own "personality" with one being the best friend who tries to get with the main girl character's best friend but is constantly rejected, another friend being the super awkward one that can't live down seeing the positive in everything 24/7 and is thrown in for the one-liners (which in this case is just a bunch of movie references, specifically from Disney), and the third guy whose name you won't ever remember but is there to complete the square and throw in consoling messages to whomever will care to listen... check. We have the girl's ex-boyfriend and her parents ****-block the relationship at any possible means when things are looking up, not to mention the awkward family members from the main character's side... check. We have the downer period an hour into the movie where everyone is depressed, check. We have the movie's "funny" moments come from incessant swearing, people falling down or being hit, scenes from the trailer, and homosexual innuendos... check. And dare I call it a spoiler, but we have an ending that unfolds exactly as one thought that it would unfold before even seeing the movie... check.

Honestly, this could have... no, wait... should have been a PG-13 movie. All that needed to be dropped were any F-bombs. Honestly, it would have gotten much more publicity from the crowd that enjoys this kind of humor, would have gotten less media exposure, and thusly would have not been disliked as much from people like myself who should try and hold it up higher to the recent R-rated comedies like Superbad and Knocked Up. The humor in this movie is just so awkward that it doesn't fit in with what general people look for. I bet even the actors were often times unsettled with some of the dialogue and action they had to deliver on camera. Let's put it this way... in the theater, it will help you laugh because it's on the big screen and others are laughing. When this movie hits Showtime and you're checking it out at 2:00 PM on an off-day, you may be inclined to change the channel. The only thing that will keep you watching is Alice Eve's hotness (who is not quite a 10, but still very good looking).

Aside from the main resolution, this film kicked a lot of subplots to the side of the curb and seemed to forget to write more story that they tried to develop in the beginning of the movie, where everything else pretty much flies out the window. So there is a main resolution, but what comes of it? It's never really clear-cut, nor does it allow the ending to be "feel-good" with the abruptness.

There was only one thing worth nothing in this movie, and that was the good soundtrack. Aside from the nice choice of 90's alternative rock songs, there was a nice upbeat score that would play in some parts of the movie (more so the beginning of it) that reminds me of something David Holmes would mix up/compose. I'll give them props for a great choice of sound.

One last thing, this movie was probably filmed sometime late last summer, because the inadvertent yet proud Pepsi sponsorship showed the yellow bottle caps that they had during that Rock Band promotion. I just figured a lot of Rock Band gamers would catch onto that one if you saw it. But I say hold onto your money. If this was PG-13 and you were 15 years old on a Friday night with a group of friends, I'd say knock yourselves out. Otherwise, definitely pass. It doesn't try and compete with the R-rated movies of the past few years, and ideally it definitely isn't as good.@@@0 -for whoever play games video games here did anybody notice that the GTA:Vice City Mansion inside the game and some other things including weapons from the movie that are connected to this movie and this movie inspired the makers of the game (Rockstar Games) to copy some things from this movie and by the way this is one of the best 80's movies out there i recommend this for anybody who still didn't see it 10/10 no questions asked@@@1 -This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.@@@0 -Perhaps this could be the best movie ever made and if it's not it's certainly one of those who are burned onto your pupils as what Brian De Palma delivers here is a great piece of cinematographic artwork. First there is the director's touch of Brian De Palma who proves once again he might be one of the best directors ever, there is the superb performance from Al Pacino who is delivering an immortal hero on the big screen (Tony Montana), there are the many different (violent) scenes that you will never forget (the one with the chainsaw, the one in where Tony is sitting in a bath which is as big as most people's living rooms), there are the many superb one-liners (count how many times the word "f*ck" is used), there are the superb little details (the Pan American-globe that screams "The world is yours") or the great discomusic from Giorgio Moroder. Nothing can be named that isn't sublime here and it easily is along with "The Godfather", "Good fellas" and "White heat" one of the best gangstermovies ever made!@@@1 -I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story…boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.@@@0 -One of the most definitive gangster films of the 80's, Scarface is very much a film of its time. The first thing you notice when you watch this film is that it is screaming at you, 'made in 1983'. The costumes, the music score and soundtrack, the hairstyles, make no mistake about it this is a film all about crime in the 80's and while it should have dated horribly it hasn't. This is still a superb film. While Georgio Moroder's music has dated a fair bit, it still compliments the story of Tony Montana well thanks to the superb screenplay by Oliver Stone and the first class direction of Brian De Palma, one of two films that he has made with Pacino (the other being the fantastic Carlito's Way). All of De Palma's trademarks are here; the strong language, the graphic violence (more on that later), the stylish excesses such as grandiose set pieces and of course the stylish camera work.

Pacino dominates the film and I mean that literally. He is the dominant star of this film. His performance over the top, this is one of those films were Pacino doesn't so much say his lines as he does shouts them, this time with a superb Cuban accent. However, this is Pacino and he does it fantastically. Only he could go this far over the top and still come away from the film with his acting integrity in tact. While some may complain about his shouting of his lines and the sheer excess of it all, this is an excessive film. Take a look at the production design of Tony's house, take a look at the violence in this film. The chainsaw incident is downright brutal and their is blood everywhere. The shoot out at the end has bodies going down at a rate that is more akin to Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the Rambo films. Take a look at the amount of coke that is displayed in the film so Pacino's performance I suppose is perfect for the film. He is supported by actors who are more akin to saying their lines in a more controlled way. Steven Bauer, in particularly, as Manny, Tony's best friend, is the stand out of the supporting cast. His performance is so controlled and quiet in a De Niro sort of way it is a wonder how he ended up doing straight to video soft porn. Michelle Pfeiffer, of course, adds the glamor, Robert Loggia adds gravitas as usual and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio makes a great debut as Tony's sister.

Of course this is more than just a film about excess. There is more to it than drugs, violence, chainsaw assaults and a big great shoot out. This is a film about the darker side of the American dream. In many ways it puts it on a thematic par with The Godfather films. Tony finds himself coming to America, getting it all, living the American dream and then losing it all in violent fashion, and by saying he loses it all, I mean he loses it all. He kills his best friend, his sister is killed, his empire crumbles, literally, around him and to top it of he is killed in his own mansion, bullets ripping through him.

Without doubt Scarface is one of the key films of the early 80's. Sure, it doesn't have the subtleties of The Godfather films, but this is still a fine film and one that is worth going to again and again.@@@1 -the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie.@@@0 -I heard a few friends one day saying that "Scarface sucks... some idiot tried to make another Godfather set in the early 80s." Now, I usualy listen to idiots/watch CNN so I decided I'd stay away from it. Then my mate handed me the DVD and said "This is #1 with the pelicangs", confused I tried it. This IS THE BEST FILM EVER MADE. It's more realistic than all this crap about racing stolen cars that are too expensive for someone in that area could afford (*cough2Fast2Furiouscough*) There is some humor though... i.e. the Pelicangs and the light 80s music. Still, whats better than Al Pacino wielding an m203? I give this a ***** out of ****, perfect for fans of Al or GTA:Vice City.@@@1 -Big Bad Ralph is also on the not so squeazy truck commercials, and can be found at numerous brothels around Melbourne any given night.

Terrible Film by the way, wasn't shocking just bad, uninteresting

The main guy was in charge of the metal section on countdown , and was the lead bouncer at a gay night club in Melbourne.

I dunno who the women where? probably pros's that Ralph knew?

No story of interest, its one of those fast forward jobs

Please look up Big Bad Ralph at brothels around Melbourne

hes famous in them.

i wish i could give 0/10 but ill give it 1. Only cos i cant give 0@@@0 -Most people who have seen this movie thinks that it is the best movie ever made. I disagree but this movie is very very good. Tony is a bad ass guy and knows that he's intimidating and uses it to get ahead. It's about him and how he goes from washing dishes to having a huge house and a office with cocaine all over the desk. If you want a family movie then this isn't the way to go but if you want mobsters and vengeance and stuff like that then you'll like it.@@@1 -First up this film, according to the slick said it won "best film" at "Worldfest" Film festival in Houston, Texas. Hmmm must have been a quiet year.

Wouldn't call this the worst film ever but it certainly sucks, is pretty much just as terrible as other Aussie B grader "Body Melt", but at least that film didn't look like it was shot on HI 8 video.

My guess is the film makers, watched a lot of Troma films, and really bad B grade gore films, thinking that they too could crack into the business releasing this film.

Don't get me wrong, I love really low grade films, Just the fact that some of the characters put on fake American accents, almost as if doing so would give them more chance to sell it in the states or something. Really disappointing ending as well, the showdown could have been way more exciting, and some good fight scenes. You can completely see that the film makers are trying to copy "Bad Taste" with the whole, car explosion, rocket launcher, and endless amount of people being gunned down, yet the finale lacks any over the top humour, or style like "bad taste".

If you like watching really bad gore films, or are interested in no-budget film making, watch it, otherwise stay away.@@@0 -I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough.

Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction.

Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!

Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.

All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here.@@@1 -I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...

Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).

And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!

This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).

Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.

Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10@@@0 -Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????

If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets!@@@1 -At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.

I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.

3/10@@@0 -if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list??@@@1 -I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.@@@0 -A lot of talk has been made about "psychological Westerns", but this is one of the very few that is truly in that genre. It has big name stars who perform very well, but it is the director who makes this such a good movie. Stewart Granger loses his British safari hunter stereotype to play a haggard retired buffalo hunter who is revered in the West as one of the best. Robert Taylor plays the upstart (in contrast to the usual young upstart, Taylor's character is middle aged, too), who wants to slaughter buffalo, and lures Granger into business with him. They hire two other big name actors, Lloyd Nolan and Russ Tamblyn, into being their skinners. Granger is haunted by the buffalo he has killed, knowing that he may be to blame if they become extinct, knowing if they become extinct, the Native American way of life will greatly suffer. Taylor soon reveals a sadistic side, but it is a realistic saidism, unlike the one dimensional sadists of modern film, created by nerds and dorks. He is insecure, and needs human companionship. Still, he won't stop at murder. The end pits the two against each other, with a startling conclusion. The psychological effects of what they're doing are well depicted.@@@1 -Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.

What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.

Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.

Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.

So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring.@@@0 -This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic.@@@1 -This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac.@@@0 -Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, SCARFACE paints a picture not easily forgotten. Al Pacino turns in a stunning performance as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee than becomes a powerful player in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his self made kingdom of crime in Florida. This gangster flick is harsh, violent, loud, gross, unpleasant and must hold the record for uttering the word "f--k" the most number of times. Almost three hours long, and yes it can get repulsive. A stout hearted constitution keeps you in your seat cheering for the demise of a ruthless crime lord.

Also playing interesting characters are Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, F. Murray Abraham and Angel Salazar. Pacino proves to be one of the greatest of his generation. He manages to bring reality to his character that leaves a strong impression. This will not be a movie for everyone for you leave thinking you walked away from a disaster. Is that powerful enough for you? Crime does not pay for long!@@@1 -Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.@@@0 -Many people like this movie and many more love it, but it seems that it is all for the wrong reasons. Scarface should be liked and loved but not in the way it has been or is.

Many people say the acting was over-the-top, but who better to do an over-the-top character than Al Pacino. To say that Pacino went over-the-top in here would be an understatement. Yet he does it so well, he just brings the inner devil out of you so well. His character Tony Montana was not such a great guy to begin with but his thirst for power just bring his sickness of greed to another level; an inhumane level. Sure at times Pacino seems to be a bit cartoonish and surreal but that does not at all to me seem to be a liability at all. The supporting cast served its job very well. Michelle Pfeiffer was not really at her best but she certainly fit the role she played. On the other hand Steven Bauer was at his best, still he is Steven Bauer. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was good and like Michelle Pfeiffer fit her role very well. Robert Loggia I have always enjoyed watching in just seeing him yell. Other than Pacino they were not really any standout or memorable performances. Everybody just seemed to fit their roles by being there. They did not fit in perfectly but were convincing enough.

Brian De Palma did a very good job directing this movie. Whenever an actor is able to become larger than life with his performance some credit should be given to the director and I will certainly give De Palma that. Brian De Palma, though not given the respect, is a very versatile director by my count. He knows how to direct movies according to their genres, but that at times has not turned out well. In here it does, this is by all counts a gangster movie but few are much better than this one because of De Palma.

The writing was great it was just pure Oliver Stone. When I saw the credits at the end of this movie and saw that Oliver Stone had written this I was not the least bit surprised. That is a testament to him though. I have always though of him as a great writer and to me he proves this once again with Scarface. Nobody knows how to write a surreal reality for a movie than Oliver Stone.

The music was good but not that great. It is certainly not my favorite from Giorgio Moroder. The music was a little bit too 80s-ish for me but it didn't annoy me. The cinematography was good, not amazing but really who cares with a movie like this.

This has probably been one of the most influential movies in the past 25 years but as mentioned before it is for the wrong reasons. People should realize that the character of Tony Montana is no hero, he is a monster. He is not inspiring in anyway. He is greedy, bloodthirsty, uneducated and self consumed. Yet he is a role model to many people because he is in some way or another a rebel but probably most of all because he is a deluded gangster. A vigilante would be like Mother Tereasa next to Scarface.

The good thing about this movie though is that it shows that the Tony Montanas' are not the real problem. If we or the people of authority would want to shut people like him down we could do it but we don't. In a freaky twisted way he is a necessity of our society. He is somebody you could blame everything on and fell better about yourself doing it. The Tony Montanas' of this world are the scapegoats of our society. This in no way excuses people like him. Instead it is more of a reminder that we shouldn't excuse or allow ourselves to do bad things just because we measure up or think we measure up compared better to a gangster or drug dealer. I love this movie because it is more than a corruption movie, it is a movie that in a strange way makes you self reflect.@@@1 -The only way this is a family drama is if parents explain everything wrong with its message.

SPOILER: they feed a deer for a year and then kill it for eating their food after killing its mother and at first pontificating about taking responsibility for their actions. They blame bears and deer for "misbehaving" by eating while they take no responsibility to use adequate locks and fences or even learn to shoot instead of twice maiming animals and letting them linger.@@@0 -In 1983, Director Brian De Palma set out to make a film about the rise and fall of an American gangster, and that he did-- with the help of a terrific screenplay by Oliver Stone and some impeccable work by an outstanding cast. The result was `Scarface,' starring Al Pacino in one of his most memorable roles. The story begins in May of 1980, when Castro opened the harbor at Mariel, Cuba, to allow Cuban nationals to join their families in the United States. 125,000 left Cuba at that time, for the greener pastures of freedom in America, and most were honest, hard-working people, thankful for the opportunity they had been granted. But not all. Among the `Marielitos' who streamed into Florida, approximately 25,000 had criminal records and were nothing less than the dregs of Cuba's jails-- criminals considered beyond redemption, who Castro had merely wanted to be rid of. And they, too, saw America as a land of opportunity, even as Al Capone had considered Chicago some fifty years earlier. And among the most ambitious was a man named Tony Montana (Pacino), known to his associates as `Caracortada.' Scarface.

Now that he was free of the yoke of Communism under which he had grown up, Montana wanted what he felt was coming to him, and he wanted it now; and from the moment he stepped off the boat in Florida, he was determined to have it all. Wealth and power-- that was Montana's dream, and he would get it by doing what he did best, beginning with a favor for a man living in Miami by the name of Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez, it seems, had a brother in Cuba who had met an untimely end at the hands of one of Castro's goons, a man who, having outlived his usefulness to Castro, had been summarily discarded and was currently being held in `Little Havana,' along with Montana and all of the Cubans just off the boats, where they awaited their papers from the government that would effect their transition into their new lives. And in short order, Montana sees to it that Lopez's brother has been avenged, and it sets the stage for his own entrance into the underworld of America.

Lopez, a wealthy businessman with the right connections, in return for the favor gets Montana and his friend, Manny (Steven Bauer), released from the holding camp, and puts them to work. In his day, Capone may have had bootlegging as a means through which to line his coffers with illicit gain, but Lopez has the modern day equivalent, and it's even more lucrative: Cocaine. Lopez takes Montana under his wing and indoctrinates him into the life, but once he has a taste of it, Montana isn't satisfied with whatever crumbs Lopez sees fit to throw his way, and he sets a course that will take him to where he wants to be: At the `top.' With a cold-blooded, iron will, Montana decides he'll do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the cost. but before it's over, he will realize the price for his dream, and he'll pay it; but for a brief moment, perhaps he will know what it's like to be The Man. And he will also know whether or not it was worth it.

In step with De Palma's vision, Pacino plays Montana larger-than-life, and he does it beautifully. From the accent he affects (which he researched thoroughly to make sure he got it right-- and he did), to the body language and the attitude, he's got it all, and it makes Montana convincing and very real. What he brings to the role is nuance and style, in a way that few actors (De Niro would be one) can. This is definitely not a character that is sympathetic in any way, nor is there anything about Montana that you can readily relate to on a personal level; but Pacino's screen presence is so strong that it makes him a thoroughly engrossing character, even though it's hard to become emotionally involved with him. It's quite simply a dynamic, memorable performance.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid performance, as well, in the role that put her on the path to stardom. As Elvira, the woman who becomes an integral part of Montana's dream, Pfeiffer is subtle and understated, giving that sense of something going on underneath, while affecting a rather cold and distant exterior countenance. She, like Pacino, definitely makes her presence felt as she fairly glides across the screen with a stoic, enigmatic and sultry demeanor.

The supporting cast includes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Sosa) and Harris Yulin (Bernstein). An excellent precursor to the more recent and highly acclaimed `Traffic,' and `Blow,' and well as having a climactic scene reminiscent of Peckinpah's `The Wild Bunch,' De Palma's `Scarface,' originally panned by critics, has since been cited by many as being the definitive American gangster saga. Much of the violence is implied rather than graphic, but this film still has an edge of realism to it that many may find somewhat disturbing. But if you stay with it, there is a lesson to be learned in the end. And like many lessons in life, the most valuable are often the hardest to take at the time. But the reward is always worth it, and that's the way it is with this film. I rate this one 8/10.





@@@1 -"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.

I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.@@@0 -Arguebly Al Pacino's best role. He plays Tony Montana, A small time hood from Cuba turned into a rich and powerful crime lord in Miami, and he does it with the only two things he's got in this world, his balls and his word, and he doesn't break'em for nobody. Starts as doing jobs for a big time Cuban dealer, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) and quickly goes up the ladder of the organization along with his long time friend Manny (Steven Bauer). Soon he has an eye for the boss's sexy wife Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). After Frank sees a threat from Tony to his position, he attempts to assassin Tony but with no luck. Tony is upset and nothing can stop him now. the film has a great supporting cast among them is F. Murray Abraham as a jumpy gangster, another familiar face is Harris Yulin as a crooked cop trying to shake down Tony, Marry Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Tony's young sister. Credits to the Ecxellent screenplay by Oliver Stone. This film is one of Brian DePalma's Brightest points in his long ups and downs career, you can see this guy is very talented. The movie has a magnificent look to it. Also pay attention for two memorable scenes: The one at the fancy restaurant ("Say goodnight to the bad guy"). the other is the final shootout where Tony shows that he still knows how to kick ass and kills about 20 assassins that invaded to his house. this is certainly one of the most impressive endings to a movie I have ever seen. For fans of Al Pacino and crime movies it's a must-see. For the rest of you it's highly recommended. 10/10@@@1 -What the hell is this? "Kooky drama"? "Lawyers in Loony Tunes Land"? The world's thinnest, most duck-faced actress (even more duck-faced and anorexic than Michelle Pfeiffer) overacts her bony butt off, making cretinous grimaces that would shame Bugs Bunny, in one of the most animated non-animated TV series ever. This is also the most annoying one-hour-format TV show ever, hence the worst.

All the men act like pansies, and I for one refuse to believe that even hip big-city shysters are all as delta-male-like as this sorry (short) bunch. Wuss Peter MacNicol manages to be even more irritating than Calista Flockofducks with his fake Hollywood "shshshs" speech impediment: it's the sort of pseudo-inability to pronounce the letter "S" by turning it into a moronic "SH" that the likes of Jon Shtewart and Christian Shlater also practice with zeal. Watching MacNicol talk, I always wonder how come his jaw doesn't dislocate... Human facial anatomy was never meant to support the pronouncing of the "SH" sound more than three times per second. He is a medical wonder.

This badly conceived and written legal-drama/comedy hodgepodge also features some very 90s PC. It has POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written with huge, neon letters. Is there anything more unrealistic than a bunch of LAWYERS being full of ideals, high principles, and moral fiber? Laughable, but that's the way defense lawyers have been portrayed in Hollywood since its inception. After all, what is more noble than defending a murderer, a rapist, or a thief? When a TV series as retarded as "Ally McBeak" starts preaching to America about how it should run the country, then it must be time for Paris Hilton to become President. "Ally McQuack" is both a product of recent and large-scale Western dumbing-down and a perpetrator of it.

Those supposed touches of "eccentricity", like the UNBELIEVABLY annoying musical numbers, are unconvincing and embarrassingly unfunny. This is no Monty Python. Whatever "new" the talent-free makers of this garbage were aiming for, they failed with honours. "Ally McBeak" is a highly commercialized TV venture aimed at indiscriminating yuppies, bored housewives, and bipolar lawyers. It's yet another dull "objection overruled sustained your Honour may I call the witness" legalistic baloney that the American audiences seem to eat up with relish for some strange reason...@@@0 -The story turns around Antonio 'Scarface' Montana, an ultra-violent Cuban refugee who comes to the United States with less than nothing, and makes a place for himself at the top of the cocaine trade...

As a calculating man with a conscience, and extreme ambitions, Tony strongly begins to desire the things he sees a criminal high-roller enjoying, including his luscious lover... Heights his way out of a refugee camp by enjoying the chance to stab a former taker of Freedom, takes out rival dealers, gains the confidence of an important drug lord by eclipsing a local gang boss in Miami, and eventually makes it to the highest levels of the drug organization...

Pacino shows the results of greed and lust for power on the human psyche... He guns his way through the sunny streets of Miami where he got 'the world and everything in it.' With his ruthlessness, obscene dialog, and his negotiation skills, he begins to imagine himself invulnerable and above all others... He quickly moves deep to the world of gangs, and becomes more ruthless than anyone else can possibly imagine...

Michelle Pfeiffer looks dazzling as the addicted wife with no inner life... She succeeds in portraying the trophy 'object' navigating uncertain waters with her anti-hero... Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio happens to be the best in Tony's life, the only thing that is good and pure... Her revulsion at the end of the movie is so fiery that her whole head could have blown off... Robert Loggia exhibits a weak and fearful disposition, especially when faced with Pacino as a challenger... He proves to be a less-ambitious boss in a position of power... Steven Bauer shines as the man of charm, loyal ally and faithful friend...

The Oliver Stone-scripted 'Scarface' is a change in genre, lifting scene after scene of Hawks' classic while updating the rise-and-fall gangster saga to modern, drug-infested Miami... But, as always, the focus is on decadence, profanity and violence—memorably a sickening chainsaw murder, rather than on the psychological and social reasons for the hoodlum's psychopathic behavior...@@@1 -Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.

I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.

My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.

And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better.@@@0 -Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.

A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.

Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.

Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."

That's what Tony saw as the American dream.

He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.

The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.

After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?

This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.

Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today?@@@1 -I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.

Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.

It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.

The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.

@@@0 -Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, "Scarface" is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the "king" in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10@@@1 -I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armature production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although he physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.

Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.

It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.

The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.@@@0 -"A Classic is something that everybody wants to have read but nobody wants to read. A classic is also something that everyone praises but no one has read." -Mark Twain

'Classic' seems to be the word used to describe "Scarface", Brian DePalma's 1983 film about opulence, self surrender, greed, and danger among Florida's drug ring. People and critics (and rappers for that matter) deem this film 'an epic gangster classic' or 'eptiome of gangster films.' When it is anything but. It is praised for all the wrong reasons. Scarface is a terrific film that deserves praise from all over, but not all the praise it gets from audiences today, and therefor the fine points it so poignantly makes are missed by the general public.

First off, the film is about a Cuban refugee, with a past of wanting to escape communism grasp and find happiness. Simple? Yes. But the layers of De Palma's directing genius, and the great story written by Oliver Stone (yes I know, he actually wrote a real good one here) play into all of it. The characters are all looking for an escape, as escape is a natural element dealt with in the film by all. Each character has something to offer, that makes them likable by everyone who could appreciate this film. They are entwined in a world of mystique and money, but all that has a price, as they all learn. Each character thinks they are getting better chances in life, when in true dramatic irony, they are actually getting worse. 'Tragedy' would be a better word to describe this movie. All those who praise the film for it's drug usage, it's violence, it's dialog, totally missed the point. There is nothing really positive about the film besides the characters positive expectations of themselves. And that is why the film works so well. The devastation through out the film serves to deliver the message of the film, not to look cool or attract viewers. Brian De Palma doesn't make movies for cult gangsters, or brainless action fans.

Next on, the film is an adult drama. It is not a 'gangster film'. It has it's share of action, but the action is plotted very carefully, so it has a point. It's not like "Aliens"- an example of a big dumb action film, and most audiences perceive this film as a big dumb action gangster film about doing drugs and shooting people. Ridiculous. Hogwash. If this film is about that, then it is about how bad it is. Not a promotion of it.

This being said, the film is indeed a great film. It has great cinematography that pulls you into the story. It has a very dramatic score (in true Giorgio Moroder style), which simply could give you chills, or bring you to tears. The film is rather lengthy, but it is a story, and each moment counts. The acting is terrific. Al Pacino - enough said. He can do any role that he puts his mind to, and this was no exception. Pretty boy Steven Bauer, as Manny. I didn't think much of him in other films he did, but he actually makes you like him when he goes under maestro De Palma's direction. Michelle Pfeiffer is a true gem as Elvira. Popping' fresh off the heels of a sort of embarrassment in "Grease 2" she got her ticket to ride performing a no holds barred performance of a beauty that is more than meets the eye. But the three true diamonds in this rough are Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio as Tony's sister Gina, who when she smiles, or cries, we see her soul and her fresh way of living, and watch it deteriorate; Paul Shenar as Alejandro Sosa, a drug lord, who runs deeper than a river, and Shenar portrays him as so; and Miriam Colom as Tony and Gina's torn mother. These three dig the film as deep as it can go.

This reviewer learned one main thing when watching "Scarface" for the first time. Always go into a film unsuspecting. All the hype and talk of this film cannot possibly prepare you for what you really see. Only knowing De Palma (like I do) can give you even a glimpse of what this film holds. So ignore the rap crap, ignore the mindless violence supporters, and fix yourself a glass of Bailey's on the rocks, and indulge yourself in an emotional viewing of a great film, the real "Scarface."@@@1 -Really, when it comes down to it, this movie is just not funny. Josh Kornbluth is the antithesis of funny, and yet he thinks he's hilarious. The plot about mailing the 17 letters was fine at first, until Josh's "look at me, I'm wacky" approach began infesting each and every scene. The Judas Priest joke may have been the least funny thing I have ever been privy to, and that is saying quite a bit, since it does have stiff competition from all the other jokes in the movie. And as for the incredible overuse of the Pixies' "Debaser," I have just one thing to say: What did the Pixies ever do to deserve a fate like this? What did anyone do to Josh Kornbluth to cause him to write/direct/produce/star in such a terrible movie?@@@0 -This is one of my all time favorites.

If the movie has a flaw, it's that it comes at you like a raging bull. It doesn't so much engage the viewer as assault him. ''Scarface'' is as voracious and unyielding a production as Tony Montana himself. Nothing is left to the viewer's imagination.

Moroder's languorous synthpop fits the action to a tee. Like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, it wails and gnashes, broods and tugs, a constant reminder of Tony's inexorable fate.

Not so much a tale of caution as a disaster in progress, ''Scarface'' rips across the screen with the unstoppable force of a runaway train.@@@1 -My wife and I rented this movie because some people had drawn parallels between it and "Office Space". Blockbuster and IMDB even had it as an "also recommended" selection if you liked "Office Space".

Now, I've seen Office Space probably 15 or 20 times. I love it. It's probably one of my 10 favorite movies. Witty, humorous, and featuring characters that remind me of people I've worked with over the years. "Haiku Tunnel" is similar to "office Space" in that they are both films. That's where the similarity ends. We sat through probably the first 50 minutes of HT, giving it the benefit of the doubt, hoping, nay, *praying* that it would get better. It didn't. We couldn't take it any more, and stopped the tape. Thank GOD it was a free rental. I'd have been p***ed if we'd actually paid for it. We should be reimbursed for having to sit through it. Now, since we didn't see the end, perhaps it miraculously comes together and redeems itself. I doubt it.

Haiku Tunnel is so bad it's hard to believe it ever got produced. The movie is SO unfunny it's painful. Just mail the friggin letters already!!! The premise is asinine. The jokes are awful. We got as far as the "printer doesn't work" scene and had to stop. We couldn't take it anymore. This film is an EMBARRASMENT for Josh Kornbluth.

If you are a fan of Office Space......don't waste your time with this turd. 0/10@@@0 -The Last Hunt is the forgotten Hollywood classic western. The theme of genocide via buffalo slaughter is present in other films but never so savagely. Robert Taylor's against-type role as the possessed buffalo and Indian killer is his finest performance.

In the 1950s, your mom dropped you and your friends off at the Saterday matinée, usually featuring a western or comedy. But it was wrong then and now to let a youngster watch psycho-dramas like The Searchers and The Last Hunt. Let the kids wait a few years before exposing them to films with repressed sexual sadism and intense racial hatred.

Why did Mom fail to censor these films? Because they featured "safe" Hollywood stars like Taylor and John Wayne. But the climatic scene in The Last Hunt is as horrifying as Vincent Price's mutation in The Fly.

The mythology of the white buffalo, part of the texture of this movie, was later ripped-off by other movies including The White Buffalo, starring Charles Bronson as Wild Bill Hickock. The laugh here is that Bronson used to play Indians.

Today a large remnant bison herd resides in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. In the winter, hunger forces surplus animals out of the park into Montana, where they are sometimes harvested by Idaho's Nez Perce Indians under a US treaty right that pre-dates the Lincoln Presidency. Linclon signed the Congressional act which authorized the continental railroad and started the buffalo slaughter.@@@1 -Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.

The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?

Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.

And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.

Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.

While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.

3/10@@@0 -"Scarface" has a major cult following even now, 22 years after its release.

It has also been widely criticized as being very tacky, unrefined, over-the-top and all bloated up! These are people who compare Scarface to The Godfather movies. It is true that on the technical front, (cinematography, screenplay, direction, etc.) Scarface is way behind 'The Godfather'.

But it is also true, that what Scarface has and some other gangster movies lack, is the rawness, the sheer crude approach of the gangsters. The Latino gangsters in this movie look much more menacing and real than any of the polished Italian or Irish gangsters from other gangster classics like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas'. This is one of the major winning points of Scarface and I strongly believe that this fact has been written off as "tackiness" by most critics! I have seen the original 1932 Scarface, and I must say that both these movies are way too different from each other and should be seen as two different movies instead of praising the original over the "remake"!

Al Pacino has been criticized to be over-the-top and loud in this movie. But how about considering that that is precisely the way the film-makers wanted Tony Montana's character to be! He is this angry young man who takes hasty decisions and throws fits of tantrum every other minute! He is not the calm Michael Corleone here. He is Tony Montana, a very tacky, uneducated individual who doesn't really think much and gets angry all the time!

There is definitely a very 80s feel to this movie. The soundtrack is all 80s! I love some of the songs, including 'Gina and Elvira's theme', 'Push it to the limit' and the title track instrumental.

There are some memorable and beautifully shot sequences, including the famous chainsaw scene, the Rebenga hit, the first meeting with Sosa and Tony's visit to his mother's.

About the performances: Al Pacino is brilliant as the angry Cuban refugee. He has reportedly mentioned that he enjoyed playing Tony Montana the most in his entire career. And it really does seem like he has enjoyed himself thoroughly in all his scenes! One wonders what "Scarface" would be like without Pacino. I just couldn't imagine anyone else portraying Tony Montana and in all probabilities, the film wouldn't be as effective without him!

Steven Bauer shines as Tony's friend Manny.

Robert Loggia is wonderful as Tony's boss, Lopez. So is F. Murray Abraham (as Omar) in a small role.

Then there is some eye-candy in the form of Elvira played by Michelle Pfeiffer. She looks beautiful and is adequate in her role.

The director does go a bit overboard during a particular part in the climax. Without revealing anything, I would only say that that was the only little part that suffers due to improper handling.

"Scarface" is definitely one of the most entertaining and one of the best gangster movies to ever come out. Enjoy it for what it is: a raw portrayal of the Drug Lords and their gangland!@@@1 -Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.

As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.

Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.

The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie.

In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.

The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project.

Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.

The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10.



@@@0 -Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from "Scarface". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled "American Dream".

Anybody complaining about the "cheesiness" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.

This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.

The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.

Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. "Scarface" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10@@@1 -This movie is nothing like "Office Space" except in the premise. Office Space was hilarious. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as I laughed not once during the entire film. Mr. Cornbluth's self-indulgent tirades quickly become more annoying than 15 Jason Alexanders in the same room. If you decide to see this movie, use a free rental or watch it at someone else's house so you can leave if necessary.@@@0 -This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it – until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo – just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic – Aids.

Although the person who has aids – is Leo – the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel – he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother – the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me – the way they supported their son – even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them– most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together – you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.

Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend@@@1 -I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.

I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.

The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.

From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.

If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.

This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".@@@0 -I saw this movie about a week ago and still keep thinking about it. I was very moved by this movie. I found the characters very believable and likable almost to a fault. As in real life though sometimes people disappoint, as was the case with Leo, who even though I liked his character I could not have been more disappointed when he was willing to have unprotected sex even though fully aware of his HIV status. I was also disappointed with Leo for rejecting the medicine available to him, and the awful way he treated Marcel when he decided to ship him back home on the train. I think this movie showed in a very real way why HIV numbers are up in young gay men. This is in no way meant to bash gays (I am gay) and movie very well could have been made about a young straight person who makes bad choices and seems unaware of the consequences to himself and others. The only part of the movie I couldn't understand was why the (gay friendly) family was unwilling to include Marcel in Leo's illness to the point of not allowing him to go to the funeral.

I think the biggest message from this movie is that whether gay or straight is DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX!@@@1 -After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!

Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.

Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it.@@@0 -I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.

I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.

@@@1 -The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.

Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.

The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.

Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.@@@0 -This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.

The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.

The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.

Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.@@@1 -I'll dispense with the usual comparisons to a certain legendary filmmaker known for his neurotic New Yorker persona, because quite frankly, to draw comparisons with bumbling loser Josh Kornbluth, is just an insult to any such director. I will also avoid mentioning the spot-on satire `Office Space' in the same breath as this celluloid catastrophe. I can, however, compare it to waking up during your own surgery – it's painful to watch and you wonder whether the surgeons really know what they're doing. Haiku Tunnel is the kind of film you wish they'd pulled the plug on in its early stages of production. It was cruel to let it live and as a result, audiences around the world are being made to suffer.

The film's premise – if indeed it has one – is not even worth discussing, but for the sake of caution I will. Josh Kornbluth, a temp worker with severe commitment-phobia, is offered a permanent job. His main duty is to mail out 17 high priority letters for his boss. But ludicrously, he is unable to perform this simple task. My reaction? Big deal! That's not a story… it's a passing thought at best - one that should've passed any self-respecting filmmaker by.

The leading actor – if you can call him that – is a clumsy buffoon of a man, with chubby features, a receding, untamed hairline, and a series of facial expressions that range from cringe-making to plain disturbing. Where o where did the director find this schmuck? What's that you say…… he is the director? Oh, my mistake. Playing yourself in your own embarrassment of a screenplay is one thing, but I suspect that Mr Kornbluth isn't that convincing as a human being, let alone an actor. Rest assured, this is by no means an aimless character assassination, but never before have I been so riled up by an actor's on-screen presence! My frustration was further confounded by his incessant to-camera monologues in between scenes. I mean, as if the viewer needs an ounce of intelligence to comprehend this drivel, Kornbluth insults us further by `explaining' the action (first rule of filmmaking: `dramatize exposition'… show, don't tell). Who does this guy think he is? He has no charisma, no charm, and judging by his Hawaiian shirts, no sense of style. His casting agent should be shot point blank!

The supporting actors do nothing to relieve the intense boredom I felt, with but one exception. Patricia Scanlon puts in a very funny appearance as Helen the ex-secretary, who has been driven insane by her old boss, and makes harassing phone calls from her basement, while holding a flashlight under her face. This did make me chuckle to myself, but the moment soon passed and I was back to checking my watch for the remainder of the film.

The film's title is also a misnomer. Haiku Tunnel has nothing to do with the ancient form of Japanese poetry. Don't be fooled into thinking this is an art house film because of its pretentious-sounding title or the fact that it only played in a handful of cinemas and made no money at the box office……… there's a very good reason for that!

@@@0 -I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it.@@@1 -Watching Josh Kornbluth 'act' in this movie reminds me of my freshman TV production class, where the 'not funny' had the chance to prove just how unfunny they really were!

OBVIOUS is the word that comes to mind when I try to synopsize this wannabe comedy. The jokes are sophomoric and telegraphed. The delivery is painfully bad. OUCH!!!!!!! The writing is simply dorkish. It is akin to a Bob Saget show.

Watching this movie is as painful as watching a one and a half hour long Saturday Night Live skit (post Belushi).

I hated this movie and want my money back!!!@@@0 -It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.

When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion.

Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.@@@1 -The world may have ended. Unfortunately this film survived as yet another testament to Canada's inability to make movies that go beyond the execrable. Maybe it's because all our really good people (Norman Jewison, Martin Short et al) go to Hollywood.) In fact it's too bad Short wasn't cast in this apallingly pretentious and banal film. He might have given it some credibility. The Canadian government should realize --- and this movie is a magnificent example --- that shovelling money into the trough does not result in good cinema. If the people lapping up these public funds had had to compete, they might have been forced to come up with something worthwhile. As it is they have produced yet another snickering embarassment.@@@0 -It was very heart-warming. As an expatriated french, I particularly enjoyed this "TV" movie, which I think deserves a broader distribution. The acting was good, and the bonds between each member of this rural French family seemed so

strong and so natural. No doubt a great movie about the concept of family and inclusion in the face of homosexuality and AIDS. One of the strongest aspect of the movie is this privileged relationship between the eldest son (Leo), who has contracted HIV, and the youngest son (Marcel), to whom the rest of the family try to hide the situation. The two characters

progressively explore each other as time runs out for Leo, who is not willing to spend the rest of his life surviving under drugs...@@@1 -To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER

3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.

4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.

rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale

thank you I am as always

JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN@@@0 -Well-made but basically dreary low-life melodrama which, according to the accompanying interview with lead Isabelle Huppert, writer/director Pialat infused with a good deal of autobiographical detail; given the mainly unsympathetic characters involved, it doesn't do him any compliments - and he does seem to have been a troubled man, as Huppert also says that Pialat often disappeared for days on end during the shoot!

The acting is uniformly excellent, however; despite their relatively young age, Huppert and co-star Gerard Depardieu (as the title character!) were already at the forefront of modern French stars - a status which, with varying degrees of success, they both still hold to this day.

I have 3 more of Pialat's films in my "VHS To Watch" pile, albeit all in French without English Subtitles; due to this fact but also LOULOU'S oppressive realism - in spite of its undeniable artistic merit - I can't say that I'm in any particular hurry to check them out now...@@@1 -Very funny to watch "Beretta's Island" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!@@@0 -I was initially dubious about this movie (merely because of the subject), but the richly drawn characters, the fabulous scenes of the buffalo hunt, and the dramatic conclusion make it well-worth watching. I initially had trouble distinguishing between the two buffalo hunters but as the movie progressed they increasingly distinguished themselves. I am still haunted by the final scene.@@@1 -Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.

There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.@@@0 -This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving.@@@1 -From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in.

Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault.

At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit.

Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho

The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer.

I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen.

However "Baretta's Island" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it!

The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is.

As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun.

But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*)@@@0 -'Loulou' delights in the same way an expensive, high quality French wine does. It leaves you with a very fine aftertaste.

'Loulou's theme isn't new. The film doesn't carry an original plot either. Its colored picturing shows fine, but not extraordinary. Its setting is serious. Its elegant styling never and nowhere puts any weight on your mind.

Whatever one further may say about 'Loulou', it's beyond doubt that this very French film stands out for its excellent acting. The three leads convincingly reflect all numerous doubts and tenses sparkling between them, making the plot alive. Their acting fully invites you to participate, to make friends.

For those around at the time, 'Loulou' also provides an extra bonus: its perfectly captured mood of 1980.@@@1 -It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.@@@0 -Pialat films people in extreme emotional situations, usually with several violent scenes. In La Gueule ouverte, he's dealing with the devastating effects on a woman's husband and son as she dies of cancer. In A nos amours, the teenage girl's sexual experimentation leads to violent confrontations with her family. Here we have a rather spoiled young woman who abandons her husband to take up with a sexy ex-con. Her motivation is a little cloudy, since Loulou is incapable of reading or discussing anything more challenging than TV shows; on the other hand, he's got a fabulous body (I wonder why Depardieu never made a sports movie to show off that physique--he would have been great as a rugby player).

The casting is impressive. Isabelle Huppert isn't allowed to give a bland, inexpressive performance (she has given many); Depardieu plays Loulou with all the dynamism and charm you could want--see the scene in the bar, where he's stabbed in the gut, runs away and seeks treatment, then soon restarts with Nelly. Guy Marchand, with those coal-black eyes and distressed look, plays Nelly's husband beautifully; it's a fine repeat of the pairing in Coup de foudre.@@@1 -Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for "King Kong versus Godzilla". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.

The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of "Chushingura" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a "nation which shall not be named" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.

Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.

By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted "Kong" or "King Kong" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy.@@@0 -The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.

Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow "photographers" on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.

A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never "made it". If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?!@@@1 -**May Contain Spoilers**

A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who–-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.@@@0 -A truly adorable heroine who, at turns, is surprised and terrified by giblets, wrestles with mattresses, runs full-on into closed doors ... just a few of the moments that sparkle in my memory of 'The Naked Truth'. I LOVED what I caught of this show: enjoyably daft plots and some good supporting characters provided the setting for the diamond of the show - Tea Leoni as, 'Nora Wilde'; cute, clownish, and wonderfully accident-prone - How refreshing to see an actress who can clown - it's no wonder Hollyood doesn't seem to know how to cast her. But where-oh-WHERE are the DVD releases? The amount of (bleep) they release, it's incredible me that this little gem continues to remain buried. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)@@@1 -KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better – it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare!

Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!) – where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius – called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!

He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub – which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape.@@@0 -Tea Leoni plays Nora Wilde, a serious photographer, who is going through a bad divorce. She wants her freedom but it comes at a cost. She wants to legitimate photography but is hired to work for the tabloids as a paparazzi. Her boss is played by the wonderful and divine Holland Taylor. The show was well-written most of the time. TEa's Nora was beginning to develop into quite a memorable character but the network just didn't support comedy and they still don't. Even when they brought in George Wendt from Cheers, they made unnecessary changes in casting and characters. The show was fine in the beginning and the audience was getting used to it but then the network botches it up like a bad plastic surgery.@@@1 -Oh my God what the hell happened here?!! I'm not going to say this again but what sort of backward movie is this? The dubbing in this is way worst than the dubbing in "King Kong vs Godzilla",Linda Miller had to be the worst actress in it and the suits are really cheesy.Its about some villain called Dr.Who who gets henchmen to build a robot gorilla that has the same strength as King Kong but when this robot breaks down he builds another one and then tries to kidnap Kong.When he does(thats when Linda Miller gets annoying)he makes Kong his slave but everything goes wrong and King Kong escapes.Then Dr.Who sends the robot after him.

Later when I was watching the movie I got a headache when Linda Miller and the other clowns started moaning.As I sat through the misery of watching the DVD while it was playing I was hoping that the madness in the movie was going to end until the fight.The ending has to be a really bad one because they could've shown Kong back on his island fighting dinosaurs again.

Don't watch the movie under any circumstances or if you do... beware of the disappointment you will receive.@@@0 -I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises.@@@1 -Before I start, I _love_ Eddie Izzard. I think he's one of the funniest stand-ups around today. Possibly that means I'm going into this with too high expectations, but I just didn't find Eddie funny in this outing.

I think the main problem is Eddie is trying too hard to be Eddie. Everyone knows him as a completely irrelevant comic, and we all love him for it. But in Circle, he appears to be going more for irrelevant than funny, and completely lost me in places. Many of the topics he covers he has covered before - I even think I recognised a few recycled jokes in there.

If you buy the DVD you'll find a behind-the-scenes look at Eddie's tour (interesting in places, but not very funny), and a French language version of one of his shows. Die-hards will enjoy seeing Eddie in a different language, but subtitled comedy isn't very funny.

If you're a fan of Eddie you've either got this already or you're going to buy it whatever I say. If you're just passing through, buy Glorious or Dressed to Kill - you won't be disappointed. With Circle, you probably will.@@@0 -This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one.@@@1 -William Lustig's followup to "Maniac" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, "Maniac" would never have become the cult hit that it did. "Vigilante" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of "deja vu" this film gave me, Lustig had watched "Death Wish" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)@@@0 -This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.

Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.

If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.

But I have a few complaints.

Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK?@@@1 -A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..

This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.

To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..@@@0 -Those who have given this production such a low rating probably have never seen the celebrated George Balanchine production live onstage, or are letting their disdain for the star casting of Macaulay Culkin influence their judgement. The Atlanta Ballet was fortunate enough, from the 1960's to the 1980's, to be the first ballet company authorized to stage this production other than the New York City Ballet, and I have seen it live onstage several times. I can assure readers that the film is a quite accurate rendering of this production, and that the use of a child with limited dancing abilities in the title role is not a cheap stunt dreamed up to showcase Culkin; it was Balanchine's idea to use a child in this role, just as it was his idea to use a child for the role of Marie. The "heavy" dancing is left to the adults in the story.

This is deliberately a stagebound film; in a way, it resembles Laurence Olivier's "Othello". Exactly as in that film, the sets of the stage production have been enlarged to the size of a movie soundstage, but not made any less artificial, and the ballet is straightforwardly photographed with discreet closeups, and without the distracting "music video" quick cuts featured in the 1986 overrated Maurice Sendak-Carroll Ballard version. There are only two false steps in this 1993 film. One is the addition of distracting and completely unnecessary sound effects (mouse squeaks, the children whispering "Ma-gic!" to Drosselmeyer,etc.). Those sound effects are never heard in any stage production of any "Nutcracker", and they have been put in as a cheap concession simply to appease unsophisticated audiences who may not relish the idea of watching a ballet on film.

The other false step is Macaulay Culkin's nutcracker make-up, which looks absolutely ridiculous. When he is on screen as the Nutcracker, rather than wearing a huge mask (as is always done when the Balanchine production is performed onstage), Culkin is actually made up as the toy - he wears what looks like a bald cap, as well as a white wig, whiskers, and a beard. He also has his face rouged up somewhat, and the worst aspect of his make-up is that it is still recognizably his face, amateurishly transformed in a manner similar to Ray Bolger, Jack Haley and Bert Lahr's makeups in "The Wizard of Oz" (that film's makeup results though, worked spectacularly, as this one's does not). And a comparison with Baryshnikov's nutcracker in *his* production shows how wonderfully creative Baryshnikov's nutcracker mask was - the "jaws" actually seemed to move whenever Baryshnikov tilted his head back.

The dancing itself in the Macaulay Culkin version is excellent, of course, except for Culkin himself, whose dancing, as I said, isn't meant to even be spectacular. (The Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier are the prominent dancing roles in Balanchine's production of "The Nutcracker".) The film's colors, though, could be a bit brighter since this IS a fantasy. The choreography is also brilliant, and the adaptation of it is so faithful as to include the sequence that features additional music from Tchaikovsky's ballet "The Sleeping Beauty" - as Marie sneaks downstairs, falls asleep on the sofa, and dreams that Drosselmeyer is "repairing" the broken Nutcracker (this sequence was, of course, never included in Tchaikovsky's original ballet---it is the only sequence in this production which features music from a work other than "The Nutcracker").

Those who have missed out on this film, or those who despise (or loathe it) should give it a chance, despite its two big drawbacks. It is far better than it seems when one first hears that Culkin is in it.@@@1 -Robert Forster, normally a very strong character actor, is lost at sea here cast as a New York family man seeking revenge on the thugs who murdered his son and attacked his wife in a home invasion. Scary subject matter exploited for cheapjack thrills in the "Death Wish" vein. It isn't difficult to scoff at these smarmy proceedings: the dialogue is full of howlers, the crime statistics are irrevocably dated, and the supporting characters are ridiculously over-written (particularly a despicable judge who allows an accused murderer to walk right out of the courtroom). Low-rent production is contemptible in its self-righteousness, especially as the violence in our cities has only increased. * from ****@@@0 -The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.

Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.

The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.

No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.

However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast.

For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt.@@@1 -The show's echoed 'bubbling' sound effect used to put me to sleep. A very soothing show. I think I might have slept through the parts where there was danger or peril. I had also heard that some set up shots for a show on sponge divers was shot in Tarpon Springs, Florida. I would assume Lloyd Bridges never dove there. I only remember the show in reruns and although it was never edge-of-the-seat exciting we would make up our own underwater episodes in the lake at my grandmother's house... imagining the echoed bubbling sounds and narrating our adventures in our heads. I thought 'Flipper' had better undersea action. Of course, he had the advantage of being in his natural environment.@@@0 -Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.@@@1 -This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.@@@0 -Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing.@@@1 -How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an "expert" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the "land of Nazis" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning "we are the world" European to make a "real" movie about America.

Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong "foreign policy".

P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is "sheer genius"!!@@@0 -As far as I can recall, Balanchine's alterations to Tchaikovsky's score are as follows:

1) The final section of the Grossvatertanz (a traditional tune played at the end of a party) is repeated several times to give the children a last dance before their scene is over.

2) A violin solo, written for but eliminated from Tchaikovsky's score for The Sleeping Beauty, is interpolated between the end of the party scene and the beginning of the transformation scene. Balanchine chose this music because of its melodic relationship to the music for the growing Christmas tree that occurs shortly thereafter.

3) The solo for the Sugar Plum Fairy's cavalier is eliminated.

It seems to me the accusation that Balanchine has somehow desecrated Tchaikovsky's great score is misplaced.@@@1 -"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.@@@0 -This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In "13 Ghosts" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). "The Tingler" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. "Marabre" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great.@@@1 -The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.@@@0 -I was lucky enough to catch this movie while volunteering at the Maryland Film Festival. I've always been a fan of classic horror films and especially the gimmicks of William Castle, so this was definitely a must-see for me.

This is about the life and work of William Castle, who in my opinion was an underrated director. True, he made some cheap budget schlocky horror films, but he added something to these films: real live theater gimmicks that you don't see anymore. For example, he had nurses in case someone had a heart attack at his movies and put vibrators at the bottoms of chairs in THE TINGLER.

This is truly a well-made documentary and brings this rather shadowed director into the light, and celebrated his contributions to horror cinema. It also paints Castle as a larger than life character, who was very well-liked and had a smile on his face.

Unlike most film documentaries that mostly show testaments from film historians, SPINE TINGLER! shows interviews mostly from his family members and directors who were influenced by his work, such as John Waters, John Landis, and Joe Dante. A must see for classic horror and sci-fi fans.@@@1 -Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )@@@0 -I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.@@@1 -The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...@@@0 -William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is "Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story".

I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.)

His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of "13 Ghosts" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for "The Tingler" (see separate review), money back guarantees for "Homicidal"... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.

The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to "Rosemary's Baby", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.

The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not "E! True Hollywood Story". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.

I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film.@@@1 -With a tendency to repeat himself, Wenders has been a consistent disappointment ever since he hit it big with 'Paris Texas'.

'Land of plenty' is no exception. Taking into the fact that I anticipated an average-mediocre film even before I went in, Wenders' ambitions seem to always get the better of him. It's taken for grated now his films are heavy-handed and bombastic.

I weren't sure if I was watching a comedy that mocks Middle America or some thriller. The outcome of Diehl's character is wholly predicable. Wender's insistence on layering many many scenes with some rock song is also intensely annoying. He was covering up the holes in his script and direction by jazzing up the scenes.

I am certain that many people will find this film important and resonant but in all honestly, this clumsy and didactic effort only speaks of poor direction.

Interesting that Wenders professed that while making 'Paris Texas', he had great help from Sam Sheppard with the script. Yes, that was Wenders' best and he should understand now he needs a good scriptwriter. His films from the past 15 years+ were a total mess.@@@0 -This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.@@@1 -Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.

Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.

Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.@@@0 -Hitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.

This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.

All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.

In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough.@@@1 -I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.@@@0 -This film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.

The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.

This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find it.@@@1 -This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later).

As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations – a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information – Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them "outer space action figures") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again – we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film – particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.

The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects – even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.

Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads – Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence – a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.

I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful – it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film – subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all – that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play – maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all…

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)@@@0 -A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of "Police Net Closing In" over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle.@@@1 -I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.

The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!

Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.@@@0 -For some reason, this film has never turned up in its original language in my neck of the woods (despite owning the TCM UK Cable channel, which broadcasts scores of MGM titles week in week out). More disappointingly, it's still M.I.A. on DVD – even from Warners' recently-announced "Western Classics Collection" Box Set (which does include 3 other Robert Taylor genre efforts); maybe, they're saving it for an eventual "Signature Collection" devoted to this stalwart of MGM, which may be coming next year in time for the 40th anniversary of his passing…

I say this because the film allows him a rare villainous role as a selfish Westerner with a fanatical hatred of Indians and who opts to exploit his expert marksmanship by making some easy money hunting buffaloes; an opening statement offers the alarming statistic that the population of this species was reduced from 60,000,000 to 3,000 in the space of just 30 years! As an associate, Taylor picks on former professional of the trade Stewart Granger – who rallies alcoholic, peg-legged Lloyd Nolan (who continually taunts the irascible and vindictive Taylor) and teenage half-breed Russ Tamblyn to this end. As expected, the company's relationship is a shaky one – reminiscent of that at the centre of Anthony Mann's THE NAKED SPUR (1953), another bleak open-air MGM Western. The film, in fact, ably approximates the flavor and toughness of Mann's work in this field (despite being writer/director Brooks' first of just a handful of such outings but which, cumulatively, exhibited a remarkable diversity); here, too, the narrative throws in a female presence (Debra Paget, also a half-breed) to be contended between the two rugged leads – and Granger, like the James Stewart of THE NAKED SPUR, returns to his job only grudgingly (his remorse at having to kill buffaloes for mere sport and profit is effectively realized).

The latter also suffers in seeing Taylor take Paget for himself – she bravely but coldly endures his approaches, while secretly craving for Granger – and lets out his frustration on the locals at a bar while drunk! Taylor, himself, doesn't come out unscathed from the deal: like the protagonist of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948), he becomes diffident and jealous of his associates, especially with respect to a rare – and, therefore, precious – hide of a white buffalo they've caught; he even goes buffalo-crazy at one point (as Nolan had predicted), becoming deluded into taking the rumble of thunder for the hooves of an approaching mass of the species! The hunting scenes themselves are impressive – buffaloes stampeding, tumbling to the ground when hit, the endless line-up of the day's catch, and the carcasses which subsequently infest the meadows. The film's atypical but memorable denouement, then, is justly famous: with Winter in full swing, a now-paranoid Taylor out for Granger's blood lies in wait outside a cave (in which the latter and Paget have taken refuge) to shoot him; when Granger emerges the next morning, he discovers Taylor in a hunched position – frozen to death!

Incidentally, my father owns a copy of the hefty source novel of this (by Milton Lott) from the time of the film's original release: actually, he has collected a vast number of such editions – it is, after all, a practice still in vogue – where a book is re-issued to promote its cinematic adaptation. Likewise for the record, Taylor and Granger – who work very well off each other here – had already been teamed (as sibling whale hunters!) in the seafaring adventure ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALIANT (1953)…which, curiously enough, is just as difficult to see (in fact, even more so, considering that it's not even been shown on Italian TV for what seems like ages)!!@@@1 -Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.

Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.

It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role.@@@0 -A delightful little thriller opens with Trevor Howard in his Jag convertible and ends on a dockside in Liverpool. It's all thrills and spills as the ex-spy has to restart his career just as he's getting some serious R & R cataloguing butterflies (how British is that?).

Trevor Howard and Jean Simmons frolic from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Liverpool (via Ullswater) - he's just been thrown out of MI5 or something, and she, you guessed it, is on the run, wrongly accused of murder. There's seedy docks, rolling Lake District hills, sheep, country pubs, coppers getting lost, waterfalls, a bunch of amateur cyclists, rooftop chases, and lots of Chinamen (don't ask), and it's all very Hitchcocky and Hannayesque...

..and a smashing example of British Noir...@@@1 -What is interesting is that the acting; was not bad, just not enough. It was rather lame., special effects nor the lines were the single culprit for this failure. Standing alone they weren't horribly bad, but put together was a tragic move. The show seemed long winded and slow with special effects apparently designed to speed the movie along, but it failed totally.

Much of the blame for this disaster was put on special effects.Don't believe it, they were kinda cool. Appleby was not the best choice for this endeavor. Though she may have been all they had to chose from with a bit of fan recogniton. An experienced actress would have brought something to the part, like Appleby never did. Scfi puts out some really good original movies, it's just too bad that this failed so drastically.@@@0 -The Clouded Yellow is a compact psychological thriller with interesting characterizations. Barry Jones and Kenneth More are both terrific in supporting roles in characters that both have more to them than what meets the eye. Jean Simmons is quite good, and Trevor Howard makes a fascinatingly offbeat suspense hero.@@@1 -I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.

It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: "Hey, we can do that." For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says "Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: "Wow, that's incredibly cheesy." Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal.@@@0 -I enjoyed Albert Pyun's "Nemesis" for its cheesy action and semi-complicated script. A lot of people complain about the "confusing" plot to the first film, which is probably why "Nemesis 2: Nebula" has a dumb as rocks plot with the same super-action to carry it through.

This one gives the name of the first movie's hero, Alex, to a bulked up super-female sent to the past to save the future. She is raised by a tribe in Africa. A good portion of the film only has dialogue in an African tongue without subtitles, which I liked because it made it seem somewhat authentic (how often do movies in this genre really try to do that?). It doesn't take long for the evil cyborgs to time travel back in time to find her and try to kill her.

Don't get me wrong, this is a piece of crap (not that the first one was anything great). There are subplots involving Africa's political unrest, treasure hunting, and tribal combat. The picture is very short on brains, so none of these things gets a very good treatment. The picture is basically a drawn out fight with some chases that boils down to muscle-babe vs. cyborg. It has its entertainment value, just don't expect quality, or anything of the first movie.@@@1 -The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.

First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.

The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.

Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.

Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.

I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.@@@0 -This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-(@@@1 -A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.

Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.

This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).

If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.

In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.@@@0 -You know, this movie isn't that great, but, I mean, c'mon, it's about angels helping a baseball team. I find the plot line to be hilarious anyways, this kid's dad says he'll take him back if the angels win the pennant (because he knows they won't) Kid prays to his fake god to help the angels win, god helps the whole time (via the angel Christopher Lloyd, RIP) And in the end, his dad doesn't take him back and rides off on his motorcycle right in that kids face. it's hilarious until Danny Glover adopts it and it's friend.

I guess the upside is that the old lady is left alone to die with her stitchin' projects and her stories. The real winner here, though, is god. Because later he got a job as a writer for numerous prank shows.

As a kids movie, it gets a 7. As a movie about the mysteries of blind, stupid faith, and the nature of "god," it gets a 10.@@@1 -Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood.

If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)

DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format@@@0 -But how can you stand to mange a baseball team that can't win. For George Knox, it is not easy. As the movie opens, Roger Beaumont (Joseph-Gordon-Levitt) and his best friend J.P (Milton Davis Jr.) are riding on thier bikes around the angels' stadium. When they return to thier foster mother's home, Roger is suprised to have a visit from his dad (Dermot Mulroney). His mom is dead! And when he asks his father when they going to be a family again, he father jokes "I say when the angels win the division championship" So later on, Roger and J.P hide in a tree to watch the angels play baseball. When the manger George Knox (Danny Glover) take out his pitcher, the pitcher gets mad and gets into a fight with him, and soon the angels team get into the fightm that gets Knox ejected from the game. That night Roger makes a prayer, for the angles win the championship. When his foster mother Maggie Nelson (Brenda Ficker) agrees that Roger and J.P go to a basball, Roger sees real angles come on the field and helps the left fielder (Matthew McConaughey) makes a catch, that leaves the manger and the play-by-play man (Jay. O Sanders) how did he to that. Roger learns from the head angel (Christopher Lloyd) that only he can see the angles, because he was the only that prayed for help.

10/10@@@1 -This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.@@@0 -With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.

The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.

All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie!@@@1 -Yuck. I thought it odd that their ancient book on curses was made using a common script font instead of hand written. The acting is so apathetic at times and so over-dramatic at other times. Why would a "demonico" kill the two suspiciously quiet doctors who helped make him immortal? Just for the heck of it? And is it really necessary to show Lilith's motorcycle whenever she's out somewhere. We get it! You spent a little bit of money to rent some third rate crotch rocket. It doesn't mean you have to show it all the time! The "Faith's" lair looks like an old school Battlestar Galactica set with some last minute changes. There is a scene where we are introduced to a few people on a talk show for about 30 seconds before they are killed without apparent reason and without importance. Everyone is a throwaway character. Forgettable characters and an even more forgettable plot make this one of the most ill-conceived movies I've seen the SciFi channel come out with. Stay away unless you're into bad movies.@@@0 -Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes.@@@1 -Genghis Cohn is a (very) mildly entertaining British movie about a German police commissioner in the late 1950's who is haunted by the ghost of a Jewish comedian that he killed 15 years earlier while serving under Hitler in the SS. The ghost comes back and wants his killer to live as a Jew to atone for the murders he committed.

Otto, the German policeman actually knows this ghost's name because, the last thing he did before he died was said, in Yiddish, `Kiss my ass'. The policeman didn't speak Yiddish, so he asked around until he found the meaning. The `kiss my ass' left such an impression that everybody involved with that killing learned and remembered the comedian's name, Genghis Cohn.

There are a bunch of men who are murdered in the jurisdiction of the police commissioner, and there are no helpful clues. The men are murdered with a set of knives that are missing from the local butcher. The butcher announces that his knives are missing while the commissioner is in the store to get a liver and onion sandwich, so the commissioner is a suspect. The first man is killed while making love to the butcher's wife, so the butcher is a suspect. But the butcher maintains that he would be very busy if he killed every man that slept with his wife. All the men are killed immediately after the climax of lovemaking.

I think I might be a bit angrier than the ghost of Genghis Cohn if I was killed like he was. He seems to be very good-natured about it, as if he was just in a mild car accident. I can only guess that it is because it is a British movie and they are known for being a very polite people. He uses some of his material from his stand-up routing, and I just didn't find it very funny.

I gave this movie a 4 because it was just kind of goofy. I thought it should have been a little more serious than it was. The movie turns out to be a murder mystery (where did this come from?), and it seemed that Genghis should have been more helpful than he was. The movie gave me a tiny look into Jewish culture, but was only skin-deep. Do all Jews love liver and onion sandwiches? Do they all say `shtoop' and `meshuganah' in their daily vocabulary? Isn't there more important stuff that we should know about the culture?

I saw this movie at a Jewish community center in Berkeley, CA, and I was the only person in the room whose hair was not fully gray or white. (I have no gray or white hair.) There were 18 of us, and after the movie they stayed for about 20 minutes to discuss the movie. There were 2 main concerns expressed there: 1. The movie was way too light-hearted and future generations might not understand the gravity of what happened and 2. As the Holocaust survivors are dying off, future generations will not know what really happened. I thought that this second concern was ridiculous and I told them I thought they didn't need to worry because there is tons of literature out there and there will always be people who like to watch movies, like myself. The murder of 6,000,000 people by a very bad man will not ever be forgotten. I write this last paragraph because they charged me with telling others about my experience that day.@@@0 -"Angels in the Outfield" was originally a 1951 movie from the Ted Turner library; Disney remade it in 1994, this time, using the California Angels (now the Los Angeles Angels) as the team (Disney used to own this and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks Hockey Team; also, good use of the words, huh?????).

This movie was about a couple of orphaned children who wanted a family. A man promised the boys a family, only if the Angels won the pennant. So, he called upon God one night about this. The boy who prayed could see the help coming on the way (and ONLY that boy); for instance, when the first angel had come down, a player hit a ball so hard not only did the bat break, so did the ball!!!!! For much of the post-All Star season of 1994, the Angels were at the top of the AL West (of which my home team the Rangers is one and it still is). However, they lost a game because the boy was at court instead of the White Sox/Angels game (there was no Central Division in Baseball back then, hence Chicago being in the West), and no angels were there to help. Thus, a new rule was created: no angels can help in championship games. But wait! In the final championship game, the Angels won!!!!! It was a miracle indeed!

What I liked about this film: This is a good movie. I mean, I prayed every night for the last few years asking for help with school and stuff; look at me now! My work was good!!!!! So for one, this shows that if you believe, God can send His angels down to help you with any troubles that you may have in life. And second, this is a family baseball movie, which is always exciting. This is an old Disney movie, too; I've seen this just recently on the New Disney Channel (blech!!!!!).

"Angels in the Outfield" will change your life forever once you've seen it!!!!!

10/10@@@1 -This seemed to be a good movie, I thought it would be a good movie, and throughout the movie I was hoping it would be a meaningful use of my time, and yes, I have to admit that the acting talent of Dimple Kapadia and Deepti Naval where truly commendable, but despite the best effort this movie falls short of effectively conveying a meaningful message, which it seems is it seemed was what Somnath Sen is trying to do. The final point comes short and the ending seemed kind of unsatisfactory after all that happens; a bit like real life in that respect but movies unlike real life ends in about 2hrs and the ending should leave the audience satisfied, if indeed that was the director's intention. This falls short in that respect and that is what disappoints me the most.

Another aspect that concerned me was the national stereo-typing of the American characters - they all seem to be carved out of the same block. Seems to me that most American characters in Indian English movies are based upon how common Indians themselves perceive Americans to be like and it is clear that no effort has been made to bring any sense of depth or complexity to any American in the movie.

These two aspects put together they make for a disappointing story.@@@0 -This movie is perfect for families to watch together. It is a great film and it deserves more credit. The special effects are stunning and spectacular. Everyone who has children should share this with theirs.@@@1 -this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.

lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh

whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.

The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.

this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7

Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.@@@0 -Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable.@@@1 -I'm a big fan of Troma but I can't figure out why they bought the rights to this movie, It's so boring I felt like I was watching for 3 hours. Some where on the plot summary it says "but what Satan doesn't know he's stuck with annoying tourists" Well they didn't seem to bother him in the movie, just me.

The only good thing about this movie is the actor who plays Satan, I like bad movie's but it was just boring.@@@0 -Christopher Lloyd is funny and really believable as "Al the head angel". This movie is much better than the first, but it has great special effects that the first did not have as well as a much better plot and writing.

OK - it was written for kids, but adults have as much fun as the kids do. Tony Danza does a very realistic job in his role - but this is NOT a Taxi reunion.

Danny Glover is actually good and even seems to be very human in his emotions as well as showing some real acting talent for a change, a pleasant change.

Watch at least once - it is worth the effort to catch it.@@@1 -Oscar Wilde's comedy of manners, perhaps the wittiest play ever written, is all but wrecked at the hands of a second-rate cast. Sanders is, as one would expect, casually, indolently brilliant in the role of Lord Darlington, but the rest of the cast makes the entire procedure a waste of time. Jean Crain attempts a stage accent in alternate sentences and the other members of the cast seem to believe this is a melodrama and not a comedy; indeed, the entire production has bookends that reduce it to tragedy -- doubtless the Hays office insisted. Preminger's direction seems to lie mostly in making sure that there are plenty of servants about and even the music seems banal. Stick with the visually perfect silent farce as directed by Lubitsch or even the 2004 screen version with Helen Hunt as Mrs. Erlynne; or try reading the play for the pleasure of the words. But skip this version.@@@0 -this movie was one of the best disney movies i've ever seen. great for the entire family to watch. the ideas may be a little far-fetched, but it's a feel-good comedy and the acting is great. love the little boy, j.p. and academy award winner adrien brody's part may have been very short, but very memorable. highly recommended.@@@1 -I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice.@@@0 -One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain@@@1 -Some illegal so-called asylum seeker comes to Stuttgart and finds that Germans are "racist."

This is just another already-forgotten steaming nugget in a long list of post-WWII anti-German propaganda films, aimed to make Germans feel "bad" for not welcoming each and every degenerate in their country so he can chase German blonds and sell drugs to German teenagers.

If you're looking for good German films in General, see "Der Tunnel," "Der Untergang," "Europa Europa," and "Lola rennt."

But not this.

Also, "Das Experiment," with the same male actor from "Lola rennt."@@@0 -One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain@@@1 -An illegal immigrant resists the social support system causing dire consequences for many. Well filmed and acted even though the story is a bit forced, yet the slow pacing really sets off the conclusion. The feeling of being lost in the big city is effectively conveyed. The little person lost in the big society is something to which we can all relate, but I cannot endorse going out of your way to see this movie.@@@0 -GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!

~~~Rube

i luv raven-s!@@@1 -RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.

10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.

9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.

8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.

7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.

6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.

5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).

4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.

3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.

2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.

1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.

Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.@@@0 -I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.@@@1 -This is a very odd film ... I wasn't really sure what is was about, some N London lowlifes find a mute kid in the woods that they all believe is some kind of oracle and somehow makes them all, in their own way, change something about their lives that usually ends in disaster. The film ended after about 90 minutes leaving me feeling quite unsatisfied, almost annoyed at the pointlessness of it all. I didn't care about any of the characters - none of them get a chance to endear themselves to the viewer.

What was the message? Am I being dim? It was just too odd. What happens to Runner? Why does Emilio shoot the kid? ... that made absolutely no sense, pointless. Can someone help me understand this mess of a film?@@@0 -The quality of this movie is simply unmatched by any baseball title of its time. Pam Dixon branches out in the film industry to recruit blue-chip prospects and make this work of art a must-see. Academy Award winners Brenda Fricker (Home Alone: Lost in New York, A Time to Kill), Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show, Red Dawn), and Adrien Brody (The Pianist, The Village) amplify the atmosphere of the movie, drawing in an anxious audience. However, the dramatic performances are neutralized by quirky radio broadcaster Jay O. Sanders (JFK, The Day After Tomorrow).

The story is centralized around a foster child, up-and-coming actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick, The Lookout). Sidekick Milton Davis Jr. delivers a tear-jerking performance as the longtime friend who never knew his parents. The two don't have much, but what they do have: Angels' baseball, and what they are seeking: identity. That's when 4-time Emmy Nominee Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon, Predator 2) comes in to save the day as frustrated Angels Manager, George Knox. In relation, all characters in the story seem to have the same mission: search within themselves to find out who they really are.

Depressed over the fact that Roger (JGL) is separated from his father, he wishes to God for reunification if the Angels can take the pennant. Odds are astronomical, but 3-time Emmy winner Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, My Favorite Martian) comes in as the omniscient overseer to work a little magic (pun). Before you know it, Al (Lloyd) is sitting with Roger in the stands, snacking on cracker jacks, and causing some of baseball's biggest boners! Dorothy Kingsley and George Wells' (DK Oscar Nominee GW Oscar Winner) 1951 screenplay is done justice under the finger of mastermind William Dear (nominated in Directors Guild of America). He includes a touching side story centered around pitcher Mel Clark, played by Tony Danza (4-time Golden Globe nominee, Emmy nominee), who in relation to all other cast members is just trying to find his place in a confused Anaheim. Clark has been dubbed a wash-up, a once big-name in Cinci, but he has something to prove to Manager Knox.

Spoiling this nail-biting plot would simply be the equivalent to committing adultery in the 18th century. This one is a diamond in the rough, and it will keep you on the edge of the seat until all come to peace. Did I mention a cameo by Matthew McConaughey (A Time to Kill, We Are Marshall) for all you ladies out there?@@@1 -i am rarely moved to make these kind of comments BUT after sitting through most of rankin's dreadful movie i feel like i have really earned the right to say what i feel about it! i couldn't actually make it right to the end, and became one of the half dozen or more walk outs (about 1/3rd of the audience) after the ragged plot, woeful dialogue and insulting characterisation became just too much to bear. this film is all pose and no art. all style and no substance. it is weighed down by dreadful acting, a genuinely dire script, indifferent cinematography and student-level production values. how it got funded, started, and finished is a mystery to me. i bet you a million quid it never goes on general release. the proper critics would tear it apart. a really bad film. shockingly bad. a really really really poor effort AND that is without even mentioning the gratuitous new-born-kitten-gets-dropped-into-a-deep-fat-fryer moment. totally meaningless, utterly lightweight, poorly put together; this movie is a dreadful embarrassment for uk cinema.@@@0 -I have to say despite it's reviews Angels in the Outfield was a pretty good movie. I like the fact how it teaches kids to always have faith and never give up because yes miracles can happen. Unlike the other baseball movies this one particular movie stood out because of hits amazing special effects and well orchestrated soundtrack which was very interesting. Though I liked this movie it did have some flaws such as some irrelevancy (i.e. Towards the end when Ray Mitchell hits a homer he doesn't step on the plate and therefore that wouldn't be a score. But that's just nitpicking.) I have to say i was really impressed with this movie's presence and moral: Just have faith, Don't give up.@@@1 -Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.

Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.@@@0 -This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being "stacked", how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter.@@@1 -The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.

Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.

It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.

Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating!

Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.@@@0 -One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.

At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.

Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.@@@1 -I had watched "The Eye" before I watched this one. I really liked "The eye", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this "Bangkok haunted" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... "Bangkok haunted" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as "The eye" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment...

100% boring.

*My rate: 2/10@@@0 -Richard Brooks' The Last Hunt was a film star Stewart Granger couldn't even stand to hear mentioned – he even tore up a vintage poster for the film when presented it for signing in his later years – but then the director did run off with his wife, so it's understandable. For anyone else this is one of the best of the adult Westerns of the 50s, and years ahead of its time in its attitude to the environment.

In many ways it plays almost like a sequel to one of Anthony Mann's Westerns that see their heroes dragged to their redemption kicking and screaming against it every step in the way. Here Granger's legendary buffalo hunter has already seen the light but, after a buffalo stampede costs him his herd of cattle in a fit of poetic justice, he's dragged back into the darkness by Robert Taylor's callous and proudly racist gunslinger, justifying it on the grounds that "I've already got the guilty conscience. I might as well have the money as well." Raised by Indians, he's fully aware of the damage he's doing as the disappearing buffalo heads for extinction, and he gradually becomes almost as consumed with self-loathing as Taylor is with hate. When the two men fall out over Debra Paget's squaw – the sole survivor of a band of Indians Taylor kills – and a white buffalo hide that's priceless to the hunters and the Indians for very different reasons, a showdown becomes inevitable, though the outcome certainly isn't.

Taylor's is certainly ironic casting – it was Granger turning down many of the epic roles MGM developed for him in films like Quo Vadis and Ivanhoe that gave Taylor his 50s comeback after years of steady decline. His hair color may not convince but his performance does, a shallow and violent man so consumed with hate that he doesn't wear a gun, the gun wears him. Granger's accent isn't always convincing, but he makes a good quiet hero in the Jimmy Stewart mold, trying to keep hold of his newfound decency and reconcile his actions with his beliefs before finally getting a chance to make amends. Russ Tamblyn's halfbreed skinner and Lloyd Nolan's one-legged old-timer also give as good as they get, but the real star is the script: tightly plotted with an excellent eye and ear for character – not to mention an ending Stanley Kubrick borrowed for The Shining – it balances historical revisionism with entertaining drama without ever selling either short. The new French DVD is extras-free but does boast a 2.35:1 transfer with an English soundtrack.@@@1 -i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..@@@0 -This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10@@@1 -Times are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier "World's lamest actor" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: "You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!"

Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.

However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible "Mexican" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.

The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details "Ain't no mercy in Angel Town"

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 -This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.

*** out of ****@@@1 -Olivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.@@@0 -I saw this film on TV many years ago and I saw this film when I got this on tape. I thought that this was reasonably well done. It was not the best of all movies, but it was good enough. The movie has enough talent to inspire many people, especially younger kids. The acting was good, with Danny Glover leading the cast. The plot line was not very believable, but the script was well written. This movie can also be the interest of avid baseball fans. It does not directly apply to a action-packed sports movie. It directly applies to a nice film that you can watch with your family and learn some messages that are hidden in this film. Overall, the film was good, but not great. I give this a movie a 7/10.@@@1 -Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha

Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.

The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.

Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.@@@0 -I think this is a lovely family movie. There are plenty of hilarious scenes and heart-warming moments to be had throughout the movie. The actors are great and the effects well executed throughout. Danny Glover plays George Knox who manages the terrible baseball team 'The Angels' and is great throughout the film. Also fantastic are the young actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Milton Davis Jr. Christopher Lloyd is good as Al 'The Angel' and the effects are great in this top notch Disney movie. A touching and heart-warming movie which everyone should enjoy.@@@1 -My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.

This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.@@@0 -At first you think another Disney movie, it might be good, but it's a kids movie. But when you watch it, you can't help but enjoy it. All ages will love this movie. I first saw this movie when I was 10 and now 8 years later I still love it! Danny Glover is superb and could not play the part any better. Christopher Lloyd is hilarious and is perfect for the part. Tony Danza is so believable as Mel Clark. You can't help, but to enjoy this movie! I give it a 10/10!@@@1 -I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!@@@0 -Although I don't usually go for relentlessly heartwarming fare like this, I happened to catch the 1994 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (AitO) on cable one Saturday morning just as it was starting. Being an Adrien Brody fan, I was curious to see what Brody was like as a youth of 21 (20 when he filmed it, I suppose) in this early role as Danny Hemmerling, utility infielder for the California Angels (in the 1951 original, the hard-luck baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates. The name change is a nice touch, since it turns the title into wordplay). I decided to give the flick a chance, and it turned out to be a pretty painless, even amiable experience, with a decent balance of laughs, tears, sweetness, and baseball-based excitement. Also, my 7-year-old daughter liked the angel effects! :-) Directed by Mike Nesmith's frequent collaborator William Dear, AitO is the story of Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a foster child who prays real hard after his ne'er-do-well dad (the convincingly sleazy Dermot Mulroney) sarcastically says they'll be a family again once the last-place California Angels win the pennant. Soon Roger starts seeing real angels at the Angels' games, led by Christopher Lloyd, whose usual zany, eccentric irreverence keeps AitO from plummeting irretrievably into The Schmaltz Zone. Crusty manager George Knox (Danny Glover in world-weary, exasperated mode) is a hard sell, but once the team starts winning, he believes Roger's angel sightings, and soon Knox has Roger and his cute li'l pal and fellow foster kid J.P. (the adorable Milton Davis Jr.) at every Angels game for good luck. Knox even starts toning down his own temperamental outbursts and profane language, as much to appease the angels as for the kids' sake, resulting in a funny bit when he starts dressing down an umpire in his usual way but starts editing himself as he goes along. Predictable obstacles ensue, such as obnoxious sportcaster Ranch Wilder (Jay O. Sanders) trying to make trouble for Knox because of the angel angle. Sure, it all works out fine for our heroes in the end, but they're so darn amiable you don't mind! :-) Baby-faced Brody has a couple of good lines (I especially like his exchange with Glover about the emotional impact of the National Anthem at a ballgame) as well as a cute bit where a pretty blonde angel massages his shoulders before he goes up to bat. Brody isn't the only future star in AitO's lineup: his teammates include Matthew McConaughey and Neal McDonough, and of course, young Gordon-Levitt went on to co-star in TV's 3rd ROCK FROM THE SUN as well as such films as 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The always-amusing Taylor Negron and Oscar winners (but not for this film :-) Brenda Fricker and Ben Johnson lend able support. If you're a baseball fan who wants to rent a movie appropriate for the kids and check out some notable young actors before they became stars, AitO '94 will do nicely.@@@1 -Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the "more" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.

The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.

The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.

The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.

The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some "humor" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western "serious" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.

The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.

The film is also genuinely pretty "suspicious" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.

The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this "table brutality" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how "uncut" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.

The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk "Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)" Wong!

Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art.@@@0 -I really enjoyed this movie as a young kid. At that age I thought that the silly baseball antics were funny and that the movie was "cool" because of it's about sports. Now, several years later, I can look back and see what a well designed movie this was. This movie opened my eyes as a small child to the struggles other children dealt with and real world issues. That kind of exposure is largely lacking in kids movies these days which I don't think is to our society's benefit. Sure the baseball antics seem really dumb now, but they drew kids in. No seven year old is going to ask to see a movie about foster children, but they will ask to see a movie about baseball. Disney realized this fact and took advantage of it to teach these children an important lesson about the world.

As a young adult the performance of Al and the other angels seems far less impressive, however I will give credit to the actors playing both children and Danny Glover who all did a fantastic job.@@@1 -This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.@@@0 -That was definitely the case with Angels in the Outfield. It was on TV last night and I believe I hadn't seen the film since my sophomore year in high school and I'm now in my 4th year of college. Although the film has many flaws, it is just so touching that you can't help but sit down, watch it, and enjoy yourself. It is also hilarious. Danny Glover's ranting is just so over the top that you can't help but laugh out loud at him at most time. It adds to the film and I'm sure it's exactly what the director wanted. You actually feel for the characters in the film even though the development isn't the best. A must see. I highly recommend.

8/10@@@1 -Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...

If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a "serious" superhero movie but at least its entertaining.@@@0 -I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.@@@1 -The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.

Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.

It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.

Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.

@@@0 -I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film!@@@1 -Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.

I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.

What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.

That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.@@@0 -The memory of the "The Last Hunt" has stuck with me since I saw it in 1956 when I was 13. It is a movie that was far ahead of others at the time in that it addressed the treatment of the natives, the environment, and the ever present contrast between the short and long term effects of greed. It is as relevant today as in 1956, a cinemagraphic discussion of utmost depth and relevance. To top it off the setting is beautiful and the cinematography excellent. The memory of this movie will be with me to the end of my days.@@@1 -You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.@@@0 -As a baseball die-hard, this movie goes contrary to what I expect in a sports movie: authentic-looking sports action, believable characters, and an original story line. While "Angels in the Outfield" fails miserably in the first category, it succeeds beautifully in the latter two. "Angels" weaves the story of Roger and J.P., two Anaheim foster kids in love with baseball but searching for a family, with that of the woebegone Angels franchise, struggling to draw fans and win games. Pushed by his deadbeat father's promise that they would be a family only when the Angels win the pennant, Roger asks for some heavenly help, and gets it in the form of diamond-dwelling spirits bent on reversing the franchise's downward spiral. And, when short-fused manager George Knox (portrayed by Danny Glover) begins believing in what Roger sees, the team suddenly has hope for turning their season around--and Roger and J.P. find something to believe in. Glover in particular gives a nice performance, and Tony Danza, playing a washed-up pitcher, also does well, despite clearly having ZERO idea of how to pitch out of the windup!@@@1 -Well, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, "Hollywood Shuffle". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.

Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.

What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' "young forever" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.

Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies "home" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.

One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol

Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!@@@0 -They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from "His Girl Friday" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism." Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the "American Tragedy"/Place in the Sun boating "accident." As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.

Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, "I'd be very surprised if he killed one person." This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.@@@1 -While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.

Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.@@@0 -In the funeral of the famous British journalist Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), his colleagues and friends recall how obstinate he was while seeking for a scoop. Meanwhile the deceased Joe discloses the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to the American student of journalism Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who is on the stage in the middle of a magic show of the magician Sidney Waterman (Woody Allen) in London, and tells her that the murderer is the aristocrat Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). Sondra drags Sid in her investigation, seeking for evidences that Peter is the killer. However, she falls in love with him and questions if Joe Strombel is right in his scoop.

"Scoop" is another great Woody Allen's comedy outside Manhattan, actually again in London. His ironic and witty lines are simply fantastic, and I laughed a lot inclusive with his fate of hero in a country where people drive "in the wrong side". Sid Waterman is extremely funny and Woody Allen is in an excellent shape as comedian. However, his present muse Scarlett Johansson, of whom I am a big fan, has over-acting and is annoying in many moments, changing inclusive her accent to a histrionic pronunciation. Her character is absolutely silly and promiscuous, and I was quite disappointed with her performance (probably for the first time in her filmography). But this supernatural comedy is still a hilarious and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Scoop – O Grande Furo" ("Scoop – The Big Scoop")@@@1 -Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.@@@0 -I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.

Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...

Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.

In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.

Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...@@@1 -The scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute...@@@0 -I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman.@@@1 -I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!@@@0 -do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.

with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?@@@1 -People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.@@@0 -***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on "Match Point" the two return for "Scoop" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as "Match Point" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees@@@1 -"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".

Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.

The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.@@@0 -Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.

It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.

There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.

I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling.@@@1 -An interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.@@@0 -"Match Point" and now "Scoop" have both convinced me that not only is Woody Allen doing a neat job making movies in England (and that Scarlett Johansson is the right cast member), but corroborated what I have known for years: he shouldn't focus on neurotic rich New Yorkers. In this case, Johansson plays journalism student Sondra Pransky, whom magician Sid Waterman (Allen) puts in his disappearing box, where she meets the ghost of murdered reporter Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), who tells her that the serial killings that have plagued London were committed by millionaire Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). So, she gets to know him, and...well, I don't know how much I can tell you without giving it away. But I can say that this is probably Allen's funniest movie in years. There's his ubiquitous unique style of humor (especially the line about his religion).

So, you're sure to like this movie. If nothing else, it'll make you fall in love with London. But mostly, it's just so damn hilarious. Even if you don't like Woody Allen, you gotta love this one.@@@1 -Horrendous pillaging of a classic.

It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.

It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.@@@0 -Woody Allen's second movie set in London. Tha Tarot Card murderer is killing prostitutes in London. Aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) gets a tip that he may be Lord Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). She starts to romance him but quickly falls in love. She's helped by stage magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) who doesn't like what he sees.

I like this better than the over rated "Match Point" from last year. It was shorter and moved much more quickly. The plot is old but I was entertained and it kept me guessing till the very end. It's not really a comedy but a mystery with a few very good comedic lines (all from Allen of course). It's not one of Allen's best but it's far better than his worst.

The acting is, for the most part, very good. Allen is bad but he's played this character a million times before and it's gotten tiresome. But Johansson and Jackman are just great--they look fantastic and give two very appealing believable performances. Also Allen (surprisingly) works on their sex appeal--there is a sequence where they're both in the their bathing suits to show off their nice bodies. The only real debit is that Allen still seems unsure on how to shot London. He's not as off as he was on "Match Point" though--maybe he'll just get better as he goes along.

Worth seeing. I give it an 8.@@@1 -This dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.@@@0 -The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard.@@@1 -I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!

I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!

Dont waste your money on this movie!@@@0 -I went into this movie knowing nothing about it, and ended up really enjoying it. It lacked authenticity and believability- Some of the things that the characters said and did were completely bizarre, and a lot of the script seemed like it was ad-libbed (perhaps this is typical of Woody Allen? Excuse my ignorance) but the whole audience in the theater was laughing so hard. It wasn't even at the jokes in the movie per se, but at the whole movie itself. The acting reminded me of Seinfeld's acting, where he tries not to laugh at his own jokes- they are corny, but if you don't take the movie too seriously, you can really appreciate the humour of the ACTORS, not the CHARACTERS. If you're looking for a random movie, and you like Woody Allen, I'd definitely recommend it!@@@1 -This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.@@@0 -Something happens to Sondra Pransky when she enters the magician's box on the stage of a London theater. Little does Sondra know the spirit of newly departed journalist Joe Strombel materializes to ask her to investigate the man someone has told him, on his voyage to another dimension, is the infamous Tarot killer that has been on a binge of crime in London. The only problem is the man accused is, for all appearances, a respectable upper class man.

When Sondra tells her experience to the Great Splendini, who is a.k.a. Sid Waterman, the magician is stunned, but decides to go along. The two would be P.I.s conjure an invitation to a club where Peter Lyman goes to swim. Sondra, who fakes she is drowning, catches the attention of this hunk, who wants to see more of her.

Needless to say, the two of them will get into all kinds of funny situations until the mystery is revealed at the end of the film. Little does the real Tarot killer think he can fool a resolute Sondra who proves herself to be more resourceful than he gave her credit for.

The result is a perfect summer film with a lot of laughs that is just what one needs to get out of the heat into a perfect time in a cool theater. Woody Allen has done better, and yet, this sunny comedy will vindicate him for past failures. In "Scoop", Mr. Allen has taken himself from the romantic lead pawing his gorgeous leading lady. His trade mark gesticulating is something this funny man will never get rid of, since it appears to be his trade mark. The film has some funny one liners that will go over the head of the viewers that might not be paying attention.

Scarlett Johansson, the beautiful star of "Scoop", seems to be the perfect foil for Woody Allen. She plays the straight part while Mr Allen does his shtick, a perfect combination. Both are excellent in their banter throughout the film. Ms. Johansson is a knockout beauty in her red bathing suit, although they have dressed her so dowdy in most of the costumes she wears on the screen. Hugh Jackman is seen as Peter Lyman a sophisticated man about town with the right pedigree. He makes a good appearance in the movie as the man pursuing Ms. Johansson. Ian McShane plays the dead Fleet Street journalist on his way to eternity.

"Scoop" is a light film for the hot and humid summer thanks to Woody Allen.@@@1 -This movie is so bad, it can only be compared to the all-time worst "comedy": Police Academy 7. No laughs throughout the movie. Do something worthwhile, anything really. Just don't waste your time on this garbage.@@@0 -Scoop *** out of **** Woody Allen is definitely not my favorite director, but I enjoyed "Match Point." It was an excellent dark romantic thriller that luckily did not star Woody Allen. It did have the beautiful Scarlett Johansson in it.

"Scoop" is Woody Allen's latest film and though he appears in this one, it's OK. It also features Scarlett Johansson and the two of them work perfect together.

Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a young college journalist who gets the scoop of a life time from the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane.) Joe heard the scoop while on a boat with the grim reaper and a bunch of other souls the Reaper has taken. One of those souls is the secretary of Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman.) She tells Joe that Peter may be the serial killer roaming the streets of England. Joe, with the scoop of a life time, travels back to the living and gives this info to Sondra, during a magic act. Sondra is at some magic show with Magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen.) She becomes a volunteer to go in a disappearing box and while she is in the box, she gets the visit from Joe. Not knowing what to do, she enlists the help of Sid Waterman to help her crack the case.

This film has a nice light-hearted feel to it compared to "Match Point" and yet it all works. Johansson and Allen work great together. Allen's humor fits perfect for this story and role. Hugh Jackman is terrific as Peter Layman, the "suspected" serial killer.

This is a fun little movie to see if your ever looking for one to watch. The cast ensemble works well together and the story flows and you sometimes forget that your watching Woody Allen be himself. I say give it a chance because you just might like it.@@@1 -His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.

Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?

It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.

One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".@@@0 -Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.

Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time.

Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.

Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.

As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.@@@1 -You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).

Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.

I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk.

As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.@@@0 -Great movie, enough laughs and action for any audience.

Since the last person who posted on this movie took it upon themselves to call Woody Allen incestuous and not comment on the film, here I am.

The film follows an unlikely duo, Johansson and Allen, as they follow a tip given to them by the ghost of a recently deceased English reporter. Their search takes them into the home of the killer, and eventually to a somewhat tragic end. But don't let the plot fool you, the film truly is hilarious and the acting is superb.

It seems that as directors reach a certain age they really get things right. Clint Eastwood, Allen and Pollack all seem to making some of the most imaginative work of their respective careers. Also, from watching the movie in a pact theater, you can just tell that people really love Woody Allen and are ready for him to really make a comeback. The second he walked on screen audience lit up. There's just something about the man and he really shines in Scoop.

Check it out, it's worth the trip.@@@1 -This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.@@@0 -Allow yourself to be transported to a different, old school kind of storytelling. Scoop is classic Woody Allen.

Allen's latest muse, Scarlett Johansson (who also appeared in last year's Match Point, also by Allen), is surprisingly able to tone down her sultry sex kitten appeal and transform into a normal looking student-type with the aid of nerdish glasses and outfits but still fails to make the audience believe how Hugh Jackman's lordly character can be so smitten by her, given the royal's background (don't worry, no spoilers here). There are no grand transformations for Johansson's character here, as she consistently plays the same character throughout despite the script saying otherwise. You even forgive her character's apparent lack of logic, continuing an affair with a suspected serial killer, simply because he is His Royal Hotness Jackman, who is refreshing to see sans the Wolverine duds.

If anything, consistency is what the 70-year old Allen is all about. He continues to tell his stories on celluloid in the same way he always has; as if he's never been exposed to modern film-making, which is probably what makes his quiet, simple films appealing. They never seem to aim for a specific market; as if Allen makes movies to his taste alone, whether the public likes it or not.@@@1 -"Visitor Q" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, "Visitor Q" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)@@@0 -I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman.@@@1 -This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping.@@@0 -Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next.@@@1 -There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?

THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .

There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this.

There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually.

Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!@@@0 -First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, "I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it." but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, "That would have been funny in the early sixties." So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.

Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.

Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the "family business" leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.

As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.

But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of "Old Money" that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)

So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century.@@@1 -Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.@@@0 -Greetings again from the darkness. Remember all the "What happened to Woody Allen?" jokes? Even Mr. Allen poked fun at the fans who wanted him to continue making his same "funny" films. As with any great artist, Mr. Allen's craft evolved over the years and he lost some fans, while picking up others. Last year's masterpiece "Matchpoint" showed he is still every bit as relevant and poignant as he was in the days of "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan". What is most striking to us 40 plus year fans is that Mr. New York himself seems to have a bit of a crush on the mother country. Apparently he actually likes England!! While filming "Matchpoint", Mr. Allen became enamored with Scarlett Johansson and her real life spirit and sense of humor. This attraction motivated him to write his best comedy in years. Scarlett, while risking overexposure, must be given credit for not just picking films that cast her in some glamorous light. She is unafraid to look and act like a real person. In "Scoop", she flashes some real on screen comedy chops and, in many scenes, delivers the real punchline to Mr. Allen's straight man. Of course, any time Mr. Allen decides to put himself in front of the camera, he will get more than his share of one liners and social commentaries in - which is fine, because few do it better.

Very nice support work from Ian McShane and Hugh Jackman. In fact, Mr. Jackman provides a few glimpses into why many of us thought him the best choice to replace Brosnan as the new Bond. As with most of Allen's films, the star is the script, not the actors. Although Scarlett delivers superbly here and is a nice contrast to the polished Allen and Jackman, what makes this one crackle is the dialogue ... especially the banter between Allen and Scarlett. If you are not a huge Woody the actor fan, fear not. He does limit his screen time and he is quite effective, except in two or three brief scenes that almost seem out of place. Another Woodman tradition is a sparkling musical background and "Scoop" is no exception ... especially the Strauss composition.

"Scoop" is a nice cross between "Annie Hall" and the best of the Marx Brothers films or the Cary Grant comedies. Yes it is an adult comedy, but it is actually very cute ... especially for a serial killer and talking ghost comedy!!@@@1 -This film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.

Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition movies.@@@0 -I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look.@@@1 -This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. I cannot express how bad it is. I honestly wanted to kill myself several times through this atrocious experience just to have the pain end. I recommend instead of seeing this movie, you bathe in acid then you will at least know a fraction of the pain without all of the scars.

I had such high expectations when I read the back of the DVD case, and when in the beginning it added that Jesus was following them I was so excited... then by the end I wanted to kill myself. I mean a twenty-three minute introduction to the most annoying characters in the history of cinema... JUST PAIN! Monkeys could have done a better job editing this trash. At least they would have thrown feces and blurred some of the garbage. It would have made it better to have not seen any of the horror.

It wasn't that I didn't get the jokes, it's that they were not only not funny, they repeated themselves like twenty times. Apparently, something isn't funny unless you see it like a million times.

Do not under any circumstances see this. People have rated 'Manos the Hands of Fate' as the worlds worst movie. I have seen that too and agree that it is bad... but ALAS it is only the second worst. 'Fatty Drives the Bus' is by far worse.

This deserves all kind of harsh language, but I can't write that here so just imagine I swore a whole bunch.@@@0 -"Scoop" is also the name of a late-Thirties Evelyn Waugh novel, and Woody Allen's new movie, though set today, has a nostalgic charm and simplicity. It hasn't the depth of characterization, intense performances, suspense or shocking final frisson of Allen's penultimate effort "Match Point," (argued by many, including this reviewer, to be a strong return to form) but "Scoop" does closely resemble Allen's last outing in its focus on English aristocrats, posh London flats, murder, and detection. This time Woody leaves behind the arriviste murder mystery genre and returns to comedy, and is himself back on the screen as an amiable vaudevillian, a magician called Sid Waterman, stage moniker The Great Splendini, who counters some snobs' probing with, "I used to be of the Hebrew persuasion, but as I got older, I converted to narcissism." Following a revelation in the midst of Splendini's standard dematerializing act, with Scarlett Johansson (as Sondra Pransky) the audience volunteer, the mismatched pair get drawn into a dead ace English journalist's post-mortem attempt to score one last top news story. On the edge of the Styx Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) has just met the shade of one Lord Lyman's son's secretary, who says she was poisoned, and she's told him the charming aristocratic bounder son Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) was the Tarot Card murderer, a London serial killer. Sondra and Sid immediately become a pair of amateur sleuths. With Sid's deadpan wit and Sondra's bumptious beauty they cut a quick swath through to the cream of the London aristocracy.

Woody isn't pawing his young heroine muse -- as in "Match Point," Johansson again -- as in the past. This time moreover Scarlett's not an ambitious sexpot and would-be movie star. She's morphed surprisingly into a klutzy, bespectacled but still pretty coed. Sid and Sondra have no flirtation, which is a great relief. They simply team up, more or less politely, to carry out Strombel's wishes by befriending Lyman and watching him for clues to his guilt. With only minimal protests Sid consents to appear as Sondra's dad. Sondra, who's captivated Peter by pretending to drown in his club pool, re-christens herself Jade Spence. Mr. Spence, i.e., Woody, keeps breaking cover by doing card tricks, but he amuses dowagers with these and beats their husbands at poker, spewing non-stop one-liners and all the while maintaining, apparently with success, that he's in oil and precious metals, just as "Jade" has told him to say.

That's about all there is to it, or all that can be told without spoiling the story by revealing its outcome. At first Allen's decision to make Johansson a gauche, naively plainspoken, and badly dressed college girl seems not just unkind but an all-around bad decision. But Johansson, who has pluck and panache as an actress, miraculously manages to carry it off, helped by Jackman, an actor who knows how to make any actress appear desirable, if he desires her. The film actually creates a sense of relationships, to make up for it limited range of characters: Sid and Sondra spar in a friendly way, and Peter and Sondra have a believable attraction even though it's artificial and tainted (she is, after all, going to bed with a suspected homicidal maniac).

What palls a bit is Allen's again drooling over English wealth and class, things his Brooklyn background seems to have left him, despite all his celebrity, with a irresistible hankering for. Jackman is an impressive fellow, glamorous and dashing. His parents were English. But could this athletic musical comedy star raised in Australia ("X-Man's" Wolverine) really pass as an aristocrat? Only in the movies, perhaps (here and in "Kate and Leopold").

This isn't as strong a film as "Match Point," but to say it's a loser as some viewers have is quite wrong. It has no more depth than a half-hour radio drama or a TV show, but Woody's jokes are far funnier and more original than you'll get in any such media affair, and sometimes they show a return to the old wit and cleverness. It doesn't matter if a movie is silly or slapdash when it's diverting summer entertainment. On a hot day you don't want a heavy meal. The whole thing deliciously evokes a time when movie comedies were really light escapist entertainment, without crude jokes or bombastic effects; without Vince Vaughan or Owen Wilson. Critics are eager to tell you this is a return to the Allen decline that preceded "Match Point." Don't believe them. He doesn't try too hard. Why should he? He may be 70, but verbally, he's still light on his feet. And his body moves pretty fast too.@@@1 -I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.@@@0 -I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.

This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her "sexy" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.

This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than "Devil Wears Prada" and more interesting than "Superman" a great comedy to go see with friends.@@@1 -Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.@@@0 -I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.

'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.

'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.

Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try.@@@1 -(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.

And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process!

** out of *****!@@@0 -"Scoop" is easily Woody Allen's funniest film of the 2000's so far. Allen, although finally looking his age, is at the top of his game as low-brow magician Sidney Waterman. His one-liners and demeanor are hilarious. Don't let the critics sway your opinion. "Scoop" is a top notch "Woody-Lite" picture.

The classical music score is an excellent compliment to the action on screen. Scarlett Johanson looks gorgeous in that bathing suit. Jackman is dashing. The cinematography glows. "Scoop" is wonderful escapist fare from start to finish. The last shot of the film alone is worth the admission price.@@@1 -I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.@@@0 -I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. "Cute" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being.@@@1 -Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****@@@0 -Reading a wide variety of "Scoop" reviews over the past few days, I walked into the theater prepared for a subpar outing from Woody. Happily, I couldn't have been more wrong. Granted, Woody the performer is slowing down a touch or two, but Woody the writer/director is in fine form - and found a credible way to integrate his 70-year old self into the story. Judging from the laughter and guffaws, the audience ate up Allen's one-liners and dialogue in a way that I haven't seen in several years.

In a movie landscape dominated by software-approved story arcs, twentysomething tastes and assembly-line formula fare for kiddies, it's a source of both satisfaction and inspiration to see Allen pursuing his highly personal and still-rewarding path.@@@1 -As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.

The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.

Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.

There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.@@@0 -This is a excellent series. You will laugh, you will cry, these wonderful people will be a part of your family. The way this family cares for one another and helps each other through their crisis sets a great example of the way we should live our lives. There are many good things they do, and a number of bad choices, but they never turn their backs on family, they work through problems. Michelle, the youngest daughter, is the cutest thing I've seen. Stephanie, the middle daughter, suffers with Middle Child Syndrome and with the help of EVERYONE in the family it's better. DJ, the oldest daughter, is growing up whether her dad wants it to happen or not. One thing they all share is they miss their mom. Danny (Dad), Joey, and Uncle Jesse love these kids so much, and it's apparent in every episode.@@@1 -Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.@@@0 -I don't know if this is a sitcom or not, but I agree that this is one of the greatest television shows ever. It's great that this show still airs. And I love Michelle. It's cute on the episodes when she was a baby and she talked, and she sometimes said something funny. Aw.

This show can relate to children and teens and.. well, families as they struggle through rough times and try to work it out as a family. I don't know who would ever turn down an opportunity to watch this show with someone.

I love the episode when I think her name is DD.. the older girl accidentally stole a sweatshirt, and she learned a lesson about stealing. That was a great episode. An example that this TV show shows the family working things out as a family.

I recommend this show for everyone.@@@1 -Considering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.

It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).

This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.

Pepper Thompson@@@0 -Full House is a great show. I am still today growing up on it. I started watching it when i was 8 and now i am 12 and still watching it. i fell in love with all of the characters, especially Stephanie. she is my favorite. she had such a sense of humor. in case there are people on this sight that hardly watch the show, you should because you will get hooked on it. i became hooked on it after the first show i saw, which just happened to be the first episode, in 2002. it really is a good show. i really think that this show should go down to many generations in families. and it's great too because it is an appropriate show for all ages. and for all parents, it teaches kids lessons on how to go on with their life. nothing terrible happens, like violence or swearing. it is just a really great sit-com. i give it 5 out of 5 stars. what do you think? OH and the best time to watch it is when you are home sick from school or even the old office. It will make you feel a lot better. Trust me i am hardly home sick but i still know that it will make you feel better. and to everybody that thinks the show is stupid, well that's too bad for you because you won't get as far in life even if you are happy with your life. you really should watch it and you will get hooked on it. i am just telling you what happened to me and everybody else that started watching this awesome show. well i need must go to have some lunch. remember you must start watching full house and soon!@@@1 -This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.

None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?

Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.

If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!

The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. "Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.

And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say "Duh?"

Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.

Rent it.@@@0 -I loved this show growing up and I still watch the first season DVD at age 19 today. What can I say? I grew up in a house much like the one on Full House. I had a dad, two sisters, and a dog. I guess the only difference was that I did not live with my uncle and my dad's best friend. Also, I grew up with my mom in the house. I don't know what I would have done without Full House on television. I think that Stephanie (played by Jodie Sweetin), D.J. (played by Kirk Cameron's sister Candace), and Michelle (Played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are my favorite characters. I can relate to each of them because I am the middle child of my family like Steph, I am a younger sister like Michelle, and I am an older sister like D.J. I really like how the show always has moral values because I don't really like any of the O.C.-like shows today. I like the comedy of Full House, too. Uncle Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coulier), and Danny (Bob Saget) are hilarious as the girls' uncle, dad's friend, and dad, respectively. The story goes that, after the girls' mom dies, Danny's best friend Joey and his brother-in-law, Jesse move in to help raise the kids. Three men trying to raise three young girls=hilarious. Each character on Full House is full of heart, funny, and genuinely believable. Joey is an aspiring comedian with a kid's heart and soul. Jesse is the cool, motorcycle riding, tough-guy uncle who is softened by his three nieces, and later, his wife Becky (Laurie Laughlin, from Summerville). Both kids and adults will love this show. Guaranteed.@@@1 -If you like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10@@@0 -I had watched several days film shooting of this movie that summer,the end result was just two scenes in the movie. The location was Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. Bring the wagon,stop the wagon etc . So this Dakota youth looked forward to seeing the movie and was not disappointed. The local buffalo herd was being culled so the shooting scenes were for real. (yes Doris, animals were hurt during filming) I think the ending was copied by Jack Nicholson in the Shining? A great western/social comment from the 50's. This should be in the same class as High Noon for real western drama or used as a social statement like Blackboard Jungle or Rebel Without A Cause was for 50's youth.@@@1 -How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.@@@0 -Full House came to me when I was about 9. I remember seeing re-runs of America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Saget, and one day my mom told me that he was also in a show called Full House. One day, I was lucky enough to catch an episode while visiting family. It didn't seem too interesting at first, but as I watched more and more, ever night at 9:00, I would just be so into it.

This show really makes you want to be there yourself, hang out with the girls, go places with them, and maybe even join in their little family "sing-alongs".

The thing I like most about Full House is that it's a great show for kids AND adults of all ages. There will be some parts that are more for adults, then parts that are meant for kids, so that the whole family will enjoy it. No matter how cheesy it can be, it's still a great show, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone.

10/10@@@1 -...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her "people" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, "Tears of the Sun" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.@@@0 -I think the comments regarding the show being cheesy are a bit too exaggerated. When a person comes to watch a TV show, what does he look out for? It is to enjoy that he watches a show, unless he/she is a critic or a person who analyzes story. But most of us are not so and watch the shows to relax and enjoy. FULL HOUSE is an ideal show to watch after having a heavy day in the office/school. It makes you laugh and it is not just humor.

Yes, the Tanner family is a perfect family, a perfectly hypothetical family. If any such family existed in real world, it would be a role model for us to follow. But this is a TV show, and not a real family, and there is nothing wrong in depicting a hypothetical family on television. The very fact that the show could run so long shows us that people enjoyed watching it, whatever be the comments later on.

Another good point about the show is that any person of any age would not only enjoy watching it, but would take back a message however childish that message be. Those Jesse's talks with Michelle are extremely touching, if one doesn't think of it as childish.

Overall I would say after watching every show of Full House, there is a contentment in your heart that is rarely present after many other shows.@@@1 -Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.

The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).

Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.

What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?

They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.

I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.@@@0 -I grew up watching Full House as a child. I stopped watching it for years, but about two weeks ago I started back watching it again. Now my kids watch the show and they love to watch it as well. My kids can't believe that DJ , on the show, and I are the same age.

I really love the show, because it is a show you can watch with your family. It has good teachings your kids can learn from. Also there isn't any drugs and violence on it. Also when the kids, on the show, have a problem they can always open up to their family for help. That's the message kids should be getting from TV now a days, turn to your family for help, not to drugs. Kids should be watching more shows like Full House instead of half the mess on TV now a days.

I also love the show because it makes you laugh and it is down to earth. It talks about real life problems and family matters. There is always a lesson you can learn from the show.

I vote the show a 10.@@@1 -The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.

Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.

Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10@@@0 -Full House is a wonderful sitcom that is about a dad, Danny Tanner, whose wife had just died in a car crash. So Danny asks his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis, and best friend, Joey Gladstone, to help raise his three girls, Donna Jo 'DJ' Tanner, Stephanie Tanner, and Michelle Tanner. This is my favorite show ever, and I can watch it all day long. And something on Full House is always making me laugh and there are sad parts also. There is never a dull moment in Full House. The main characters are played by, Bob Saget(Danny Tanner), John Stamos(Jesse Katsopolis), Dave Coulier(Joey Gladstone), Candace Cameron(DJ Tanner), Jodie Sweetin(Stephanie Tanner), and Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen(Michelle Tanner).@@@1 -This is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.

One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them.

It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.@@@0 -i really did not watch this show as often when i was a child but the first episode i remember ever seeing is the episode where Kimmy Gibbler pierced Stephanie ears. when i started high school back in 2000. i had problems all through out high school and i'd rather not get into that. but i used to always watch saved by the bell but that show really reminded me of the problems i faced at school, and it rarely showed the kids parents. saved by the bell is okay, but not a good family show. a few days after i graduated high school in 2004. i turned the TV to the family channel and day after day i got addicted to full house. i could even push the info button and see the year it came out and i would remember what i was doing during that time period. the episode was about to come on and it was titled "birthday blues" and to this day it is most favorite episode, it's sad, with a happy ending, and you see Kimmy Gibbler in a way she doesn't act in other episodes, she actually shows her serious side. i have seasons 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 on DVD and i am waiting for 7 and 8. i wished somehow they could have a documentary and some commentaries from the cast members. i don't why some people have a hatred for this show because you don't see trash and violence on this show. and for those who hate this show, i pray for you because you might have grown up in a dysfunctional family where there was no love. but full house in my opinion is a family living in heaven where everyone is happy and good things always happen. and the characters are so awesome. Danny Tanner reminds me of my mother and grandmother. Joey is good natured and is always in a good mood. when i was a child i used to be just like Jesse and he is the first actor on TV as a guy that is so obsessed with hair. somehow you can actually tell that DJ is a California girl. i really like the episodes with Kimmy Gibbler because she always makes me smile and brightens my day when i watch her. and Stephanie is so cool. also i have a hard time telling the Olsen twins apart. i want my kids to watch it one day. but full house is my #1 favorite show and Sabrina the teenage witch is my #2 favorite. one day, sometime before i die, i would really like to meet all the cast of full house in person. the first 3 seasons are kinda boring but they start getting better in the 4th season. i just wished they could have made a 9th season. they stopped making full house in 1995 and in the fall of 1996 Sabrina the teenage witch came out (which is a similar family show)but full house is a very loving show and they have their good times and bad times, and yes, i understand, if your a wild trashy type person your going to hate this show but this is a show for happiness and it is also moral show. also i would like to say that the first 3 seasons is good kid shows but around the 4th and 5th seasons DJ and Stephanie become teenagers. also i noticed, not only with full house but a lot of shows, they never talk about the problems in the world and politics, like when full house was on the air during the gulf war in 1991 and during the time of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, they never mention anything about it. also steve was my favorite DJ's boyfriend, the ones with viper and nelson were'nt very interesting. but season 5 and 6 i think are the best. i just wished they would have made a 9th season because, it left a big question mark in my head, because on the last episode in the last minute, dj gets a surprise and goes to her prom with her ex boyfriend steve, i always wondered if they got back together. and i liked how in the final seasons, DJ was always the responisible one and stephanie was always wanting to do something daring, like in the episode "stephanie's wild ride"@@@1 -You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!@@@0 -Full House is a great family show. However, after watching some episodes over and over again I've realized that they're incredibly boring and they seem to shelter themselves from the outside world a lot. Yes, there is a lot of comedy, but there are times when it's incredibly cheesy. It's not like I hate it, but just don't watch them over and over again because they get old quick. Probably the best season is the first.

Full House is about widower Danny Tanner(Bob Saget)and his three daughters D.J. (Candace Cameron) Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley). When Danny's wife dies the he is in need of some help. So, his best friend Joey (Dave Coulier) and the girls' Uncle Jesse (John Stamos) moves in with them. Once they live there together they find they can't live without each other.

Full House reminds you just how important family is and that you can always go home again.@@@1 -How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.

Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.@@@0 -This show is about three little girls. (D.J, Stephanie, and Michelle) Their Mother is killed by a drunk driver so their father Danny invites his Brother-in-law (Jesse) and his Old Friend(Joey). So the whole show is about living life. The girls go through life's troubles and have life lessons. They develop crushes, boyfriends, and many more. The whole show is basically about to go with the flow. You do not have to hold grudges you just have to let it go. I think this show is really good and fun to watch. I grew up watching this show and still watch it today. I am glad they still air this show on television. I watch it almost every day. I rate it 10/10.@@@1 -This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.@@@0 -OK. Who brought the cheese. I love it. During it's run it became a phenomenon. The Anorexic Twins became popular.Bob Saget started making a paycheck (Instead of his REALLY funny stand-up). And people knew who Dave Coulier was. This is when life was good and simple. This is one of the great American classics. It was humorous and always brought home a good lesson. And this is where I differ from the norm: I liked the last few seasons. Like Home Improvement, when children get older there are a lot more you can do with the script. This is why I dare say...It could have gone much later than it did. But anyway. I gave it an 8/10 because of its wholesome, funny story lines, and because of Bob Saget!@@@1 -Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand.

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine@@@0 -I love full house so much that i couldn't live without full house. Why did it end? It upsets a lot of the fan of it. Can we have a Full House II? Oh, come on! But it is better that we have those DVD to help us. But i need those real ones to come up with another new episode. Love, Warmth are filled the house! All the characters are very cute and handsome! Candace Cameron, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Jodie Sweetin, Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, and John Stamos, loooooooove you! DJ, Michelle, Stephanie, Danny, Joey, and Jesse please come back to the screen please! How is Michelle after falling down from a horse? How are Nicky and Alex? Is Joey alone or is he having a wife or at least a girlfriend? Are they still living in the same house? I want to continue the life of full house! and please don't upset me!@@@1 -I'd have to say that this was a little embarrassing for the 'King of the Cowboys'; made in 1948, the picture came out a decade after Roy Rogers' earliest pictures in which he had a starring role. Roy's character comes off as a bit clueless in this one, along with his female co-star Jane Frazee, who alternates her allegiance between Roy and Robert Livingston, portraying chief bad guy Bill Regan. The whole story seems kind of muddled, with missed opportunities for what could have been an entertaining hour or so. Like the legend of the 'Hangman's Hotel' for example, which says the hanged man comes to life at midnight. With Andy Devine in the cast as Cookie Bullfincher, you would think the story would get a little mileage out of that set up. Instead, you have some convoluted proceedings that would have been better served if this had been a Bowery Boys flick. It was a sad attempt at a haunted hotel gimmick that relied on poor old Genevieve, who truth be told, wound up getting more screen time than Trigger, who's contract as 'Smartest Horse in the Movies' didn't have anything to say about getting upstaged by a mule. And then you have Foy Willing and his Riders of the Purple Sage replacing Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers for your musical interlude. I don't know about you, but it was already half way into the picture and I was still looking for Pat Brady - oh well!

Yet there was still an interesting element to be found here if you were looking hard enough, and that turned out to be Roy's athletic dismount of Trigger while still on the run from the bad guys. OK, it was probably a stunt double, but I haven't seen that one before in a couple hundred Westerns.

Jane Frazee does the honors as the female lead in this picture, as she would in four other films opposite Roy in the 1947/1948 time frame. In "Under California Stars", she appeared as Andy Devine's cousin, appropriately named Caroline Bullfincher. You're never quite convinced what side she'll come in on in this story though, since she starts out pretending to be someone she's not, and winds up on the good guy side almost by accident.

Fans of the old Laurel and Hardy films might be as surprised as I was to see James Finlayson here as the Sheriff of Sintown. I would have liked a little more comedy relief written into his role, but he played it pretty straight after all. I had to wonder, when it was all over, why he and old Vanderpool (Charle Coleman) wound up in the mine shaft with Cookie when there was no reason for that to be. Just a way to close it out I guess, with about as much thought as went into the rest of the picture. I hate to be that harsh, but if you've seen enough Roy Rogers flicks, you've got to know that this was not one of his finer efforts.

Say, Sintown - I wonder if that's the same place that grew up to be Sin City?@@@0 -I try to watch it everyday most of the time, and even though I have watched it for the past 4 years, I have not seen every episode.

The Show is about Danny Tanner who is guy who does news for sports. His wife is killed by a car accident from a drunk driver and he asks Jesse, an Elvis maniac with a motorcycle and has an obsession of his hair. Joey, an adult kid who does comedy and does voices of cartoons all the time to take care of his three girls, Donna Joe, they call her D.J., Stephinie who is the second oldest and Michelle, the youngest.

They all live under one roof with no one to help them out.

Later in the show, Jesse gets a girl friend and later is married to her and have twins, Nicki and Alex. (this starts to happen in the new seasons) This show is awesome, if you like The Suite life of Zack and Cody, That's so Raven, Boy Meets world, and Designing Woman, you will love this. (It starts to get better in the ending seasons) Watch it, you will love it!@@@1 -Here are the matches . . . (adv. = advantage)

The Warriors (Ultimate Warrior, Texas Tornado and Legion of Doom) v The Perfect Team (Mr Perfect, Ax, Smash and Crush of Demolition): Ax is the first to go in seconds when Warrior splashes him for the pin (4-3 adv. Warriors). I knew Ax wasn't a healthy man but if he was that unhealthy why bother have him on the card? This would be his last PPV. Eventually, both Legion of Doom and Demolition job out cheaply via double disqualification (2-1 adv. Warriors). Perfect applies the Perfect Plex on Texas Tornado for the pin. He then attempts the same on Warrior but Warrior no-sells it and kicks out. Warrior comes back with a splash to pin Perfect and become the sole survivor. 5/10

The Dream Team (Dusty Rhodes, Koko B Ware and The Hart Foundation v Million Dollar Team (Ted Dibiase, Mystery Partner and Rhythm and Blues): The mystery partner is The Undertaker and, on his debut, makes an impact disposing of Koko straight away with The Tombstone(Monsoon still manages to say his correct height, weight and finishing move while pretending not to know who he is) making it 4-3 to Dibiase's Team. Niedhart power-slams Honky for the pin (3-3) and his career with the WWF is over. Shortly afterwards, it is Niedhart who falls victim to Dibiase with help from Virgil (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Rhodes next after an Undertaker double axe-handle off the top rope but doesn't leave quietly attacking Brother Love. Undertaker goes after Dusty and gets counted out despite not being the legal man (2-1 adv. Dibiase's Team). Almost straight after, Greg gets caught in a cradle by Hart trying to put the figure four leg-lock on him and gets pinned. It comes down to Hart v Dibiase and after a few minutes of nice wrestling, Bret gets his body-cross reversed by Dibiase for the pin. Dibiase is the sole survivor. At least Hart is put to good use. 6/10

The Vipers (Jake 'The Snake' Roberts, 'Superfly' Jimmy Snuka and The Rockers) v Visionaries (Rick 'Model' Martel, Warlord and Power and Glory): After spending some time in the ring, Marty Jannetty gets power slammed by Warlord as he comes off the top rope for the pin (4-3 adv. Visionaries). Snuka gets pinned in seconds by Martel who reverses his body cross (4-2 adv. Visionaries). Michaels gets caught in the Power Plex and pinned by Roma (4-1 adv. Visionaries). It is now Roberts against four men resembling his Survivor Series effort two years before. Despite hitting Warlord with the DDT, Roberts gets counted out chasing after Martel. The Visionaries are the first team in Survivor Series history to completely survive as one. Not much here worth watching to be honest as the psychology is rushed. 3/10

Hulkamaniacs (Hulk Hogan, 'Hacksaw' Jim Duggan, Bigbossman and Tugboat) v Natural Disasters (Earthquake, Dino Bravo, Barbarian and Haku): One Bossman slam eliminates Haku early in the bout (4-3 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Duggan gets his 2 by 4 out after whacking Earthquake with it to get disqualified (3-3). Bravo commits career suicide shortly afterwards by allowing Hogan to cradle him for the pin (3-2 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Earthquake manages to overcome Bossman with two elbow drops for the pin shortly afterwards (2-2). Hogan gets beat down and FINALLY Tugboat gets a tag (who knew he was there at this point?), he wrestles for about 30 seconds before getting counted out with Earthquake. Only Hogan and Barbarian left. Barbarian puts in some nice offence but inevitably gets caught in the big boot and leg drop for the pin. Hogan is the sole survivor. 4/10

The Alliance (Nikolai Volkoff, Tito Santana and Bushwhackers) v Mercenaries (Sgt Slaughter, Boris Zhukov and Orient Express): All of the Mercanaries wore camouflage face paint. Lightning quick pins here with Santana pinning Zhukov in his last PPV in seconds (4-3 adv. Alliance). There wasn't even a Bolshevik showdown. Bushwhackers hit Sato with The Battering Ram even though Tanaka was the legal man (4-2 adv. Alliance) and would be his last appearance on WWF PPV as The Orient Express get repackaged. Tanaka follows Sato when Santana stuns him with the flying forearm (4-1 adv. Alliance). Despite Slaughter getting in the ring against four men, he eliminates Volkoff (who's career is over after this), Butch and Luke in that order with relative ease. Finally, Santana beats Slaughter by disqualification when General Adnan hits him with Iraqi flag. At last some interesting booking even though the match was awful. Santana takes the upset victory as the sole survivor and becomes his last finest hour. 3/10

The egg hatches and it's Hector Guerrerro in a silly outfit. He dances with Gene Okerlund and gets booed by the crowd while Piper and Monsoon pretend they are enjoying it.

Match of Survival: Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan and Tito Santana v Warlord, Power and Glory, Rick 'Model' Martel and 'Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase: Just merely another catalogue of eliminations as Santana pins Warlord in seconds with flying forearm at least avenging his previous Summerslam defeat (4-3 adv. Dibiase's team). Dibiase stun guns Santana afterwards for the pin (4-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan kicks out of The Power Plex and proceeds to pin Roma after a clothesline, effectively killing off Power and Glory's push (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan eliminates Martel by count-out and Dibiase with the leg drop for the pin (2-1 adv. Hogan's team). Hogan finally allows Warrior into the match who quickly disposes of former nemesis Hercules after a splash. A very predictable ending to the point of nauseous. 2/10

Overall, too many matches and too little time obviously had a detrimental effect as the wrestlers were almost waiting on a conveyor belt to be pinned. Most of the heels were decimated by Warrior and Hogan which is a poor way to handle a great roster of wrestlers.@@@0 -I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot.@@@1 -They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.

Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.

It really can't get much worse than this awful film.@@@0 -Full House was and still is a great show. It's a good show for people of all ages and is also a good family show. There really aren't any shows like it anymore. The kids are very cute and even though it's a bit cheesy, it's still good, especially for anyone who watched it when they were a kid. I would love to see the cast interviewed now. Anyone that would like to see interviews of the cast, kind of like a where are they now type thing for the special features of the DVD, should go to the Petition spot website and sign a petition titled Full House Reunion on DVD as there is a petition for this in hopes that the cast may want to do it. Yay for Full House!@@@1 -This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.

The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.

The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.

Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.

One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.

I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.

This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.@@@0 -"FULL HOUSE," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. One of my favorite episodes is where Jesse (John Stamos) and Rebecca (Lori Loughlin) get married. If you want to know how what made it so funny, you'd have to have seen it for yourself. It was a two-parter, so you'd have to have seen both parts. Another one of my favorite episodes is where Jesse, Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen) get locked in a gas station on Michelle's birthday. You'd also have to have seen it for yourself if you want to know how and why that happened. I have many other ones that I like, too. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.@@@1 -Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.

Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.

I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.

The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.

I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity.@@@0 -This is how I feel about the show.

I started watching the show in reruns in 2001.

I enjoy the show but it had too many faults.

I HATE THE MICHELLE & JOEY CHARACTERS!

Stealing story lines from old TV shows. They even stole from "The Partirdge Family." Then in 1 episode "The Partridge Family" was mentioned.

Actors playing different roles in different episodes. MTV Martha Quinn the most notable doing this, especially when she played herself in 1 episode.

The Michelle character COULD NOT take a joke but then they had this little kid act out "revenge" to her sisters for a joke by them on her.

Story lines that came & went in 1 episode. Joey getting the TV show with Frankie & Annette, never heard from it again after that. Danny all of a sudden playing the guitar. 1 episode he is coaching soccer, 1 episode he is coaching softball/baseball. 1 game & you are out huh Danny?

Jesse & Joey keep getting jobs REALLY QUICKLY with no experience. Only in a TV show.

I did like the D.J. & Stephanie characters. Wish Jodie Sweetin could have learned from Candace Cameron Bure & had a clean NON drug adult life.@@@1 -In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other "Warren Bank" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.

Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit "Emma" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, "Reducing" and "Politics" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. "Prosperity" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped… apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.

**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster@@@0 -This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show!@@@1 -Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.@@@0 -I have never seen a show as good as Full House. Full House puts all of the newer shows to shame, big time! Anyone who has never seen it, which I don't see how it is possible, should see it. It is a great show for anyone of any age. Full House will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will amaze you. True, some people feel that there are some "cheesy" aspects to the show, but, the positive aspects out weigh all of the "cheesy" aspects. Full House ran it's first episode on September 22, 1987 entitled "Our Very First Show" and ran it's last episode on May 23, 1995 entitled "Michelle Rides Again Part II".

The plot of the show is very believable. Danny Tanner (Bob Saget) losses his wife, Pam, in an accident involving a drunk driver. Danny has his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis (John Stamos), which is Pam's younger brother, and Danny also brings in his best friend Joey Gladstone (Dave Coulier) to help him raise his three daughters. Danny's daughters are named DJ (Candice Cameron-Bure), Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen).Joey and Jesse plan on moving in with Danny and his three girls for a few months just to help out and end up living with them for eight years; which is the number of years the show ran for.

The following is a short description of some of the characters and the actor/actress who played him/her: John Stamos (Jesse): John Stamos is a great actor. He plays Jesse. Jesse is a rock star waiting to get his big break. In Full House, John Stamos does a great job portraying his character. He looked and played music like his idol, Elvis Presley.

Bob Saget (Danny): Bob Saget is also a great actor. He looses his wife in car accident involving a drunk driver. He has to raise three girls without a having the girl's Mother. Bob Saget does a great job portraying a single parent who works full time and still has time to raise his three girls.

Dave Coulier (Joey): One word can describe Dave Coulier, funny. He is great. Playing the character of Joey was perfect for him. He does a great job playing the stand-up comedian waiting for his big break.

Candice Cameron-Bure (DJ): She is a tremendous actress. She plays the oldest sister, DJ which is short for Donna Jo. She is one of the best actresses I have ever seen. Her acting ability in Full House was very believable.

Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie): Two simple words can describe Jodie Sweetin, incredibly amazing! I wish I could say every thing that I would like to say about Jodie, but, I would use up the 1,000 word maximum just on her. She got her start in a kids show called Mother Goose Stories and when she came to Full House, she blew the audience's and creator's mind. Her great looks and absolutely amazing acting ability helped to make the show the success that it was. According to Dave Coulier, Jodie was supposed to be the star of the show. It was supposed to be where she was going to get her big break. Jodie, at five years old when the show first aired, could hit every line perfectly. She showed great enthusiasm. Most young kids can't do this. As you can probably guess, Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie) is my favorite character in Full House.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (Michelle): Great actress. Full House is where they got their start. They received the part of Michelle because they were the only babies who did not cry while in front of a camera.

There are many more cast members that should be recognized. These are the original characters from when the show first went on the air in 1987.

The only negative thing that I can say is how Full House became The Michelle Show towards the end. I think it was to focused on her towards the end. Especially when I think Jodie and Candice were much better at acting.

Full House is a great show for everyone. It can teach you a lot. One of the biggest things it can teach you is that everyone can live a great life even if a tragedy, such as loosing a family member, occurs. Full House continues to attract new fans. With all this said, there is only a couple things left to say; Full House will never die, and, thank you, the cast of Full House, for giving everyone a show that they can enjoy.@@@1 -Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.

I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.

Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.

The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.

What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.

What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.

People, don't waste your time on this one.@@@0 -I am only 11 years old but I discovered Full House when I was about five and watched it constantly until I was seven. Then I grew older and figured Full House could wait and that I had "more important" things to do. Plus there was also the fact that my younger brother who watched it faithfully with me for those two years started to dislike it thinking it too "girly."

Then I realized every afternoon at five it was on 23 and I once again became addicted to it. Full House has made me laugh and cry. It's made me realize how nice it would be if our world was like the world of Full House plus a mom. I have heard people say Full House is cheesy and unbelievable. But look at the big picture: three girls whose mom was killed by a drunk driver. The sisters fight and get their feelings hurt. The three men who live with the girls can get into bickers at times. What's any more real than that?

If anything the show has lifted me up when I'm down and brought me up even higher when I thought I was at the point of complete happiness. I have howled like a hyena at the show and gained a massive obsessiveness over Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. (Of course Hilary Duff has now taken that spot but they were literally the cutest babies I have ever seen. They are great actresses and seem to be very nice people.)@@@1 -Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.

This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.

Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.

And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.

All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.

I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.

It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.

I gave this one a very generous 3.@@@0 -I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture.@@@1 -What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.

So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.

During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail".

Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.

Gag.@@@0 -Since it has been some years since I reviewed this classic I have decided to go back and review it more in dept, but first some insider notes from a movie critic.

This animated series is one of those that I grew up with, it made my childhood joyful, it made it awesome, miss some of this stuff today that we clearly don't see as much as we did back in the days, well on to the review...

Talespin, or Luftens Helte which it is called in Denmark is a great animated series, it is much like chip and dale, ducktales and a lot of those old ones, so it has that weird feeling surrounding it, i cannot remember this series as much as I would like to remember it.

But in my opinion it was very great, it came with some kind of message, not that wild of a message, however it is one of the old ones so that can be forgiven.

Now i don't want to sound old or anything but i feel like time slipped out of my hands with these cartoons, today we see something like Ed Edd and Eddy or anything else weird like that, we have all these new or nearly new shows like Hannah Montana or something like that, yet I feel like that we don't have the same spirit in cartoons or real shows like we did in the early days.

Now maybe i am wrong but i feel like time has changed to much, to conclude i would be thrilled to see these series like Talespin being released again to the TV screen instead of all the new ones, give me back my childhood cartoons, give them to the kids i have some day, give them again...@@@1 -In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde.

Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch.

And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor.

However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.

This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.@@@0 -I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. When I think about it, I only remember it vaguely. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember vaguely are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.@@@1 -I came away from this movie with the feeling that it could have been so much better. Instead of what should be a gripping, tense story of a boy's fight for survival in the wilderness, it comes off as a National Geographic documentary meets Columbia sportswear ad.

The film begins with Brian (Jared Rushton) preparing for a journey by plane to see his father. His mother fortuitously gives him the curious choice of a hatchet as a going-away gift (what's wrong with a Rubik's Cube?), little knowing how badly he will soon need it. Once in the air, the plane's pilot (a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo by Ned Beatty) suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving Brian helpless as the plane crashes into a lake. Extremely lucky to walk (or rather swim) away virtually unscathed, Brian must find shelter, food and hope for rescue.

Here is where the main problem with the movie begins. By the very nature of Brian's solitude, Jared has very few lines to speak, and so the film ought to have compensated by ratcheting up the tension of each scene. Instead, he is shown walking around, sitting around, and so on, with only a minimal sense of danger. As a result, too much reliance is placed on flashbacks to the parents' troubled marriage as the source of tension. These scenes merely get in the way and don't particularly add much to the story. Even worse, occasionally Jared – his face covered with mud - lets out a primal scream or two, which conjures up unfortunate parallels to `Predator.' Speaking of unfortunate, we could have done with being spared the sight of his mullet, but it presumably helped keep him warm at night.

Another disappointment is Pamela Sue Martin in a totally ineffectual performance as the mother. Both she and the father have very little impact in the movie. For instance, we are never shown how they react to news of Brian's disappearance, how they might be organizing rescue attempts, and so on. This is just one source of tension the film-makers would have done well to explore instead of spending so much time on events that happened before Brian embarked on his journey.@@@0 -Thanks Jymn Magon, for creating Disney's 2 best cartoons ever. This show has improved very much over the years. As a kid, I didn't like it because I thought it was a rip-off of Ducktales, which was my favorite Disney thing at the time (like Grandmoffromero). Then later on though it was good but not great. But after reading the reviews here, I decided to give it another chance & bought the DVD set & watched the whole pilot the first day I got it, & was very pleasantly surprised. It's still my favorite episode, although the series did live up to it. And by the end of disc 1, I knew this was going to be a top tenner.

The characters are so complex & charming. My favorite has got to be Wildcat. He's absolutely hilarious and sweet to boot. My next favorite is Baloo, the best pilot on the show. I can see why 'ol Jymn built the show around him. Then it's Kit Cloudkicker. He & Baloo have the best relationship in the series. After that, Louie. Jim Cummings did a perfect job of impersonating the original voice. After him, Rebecca. She has made me laugh pretty hard, and I do believe she and Baloo eventually marry. And finally(for the heroes), Molly. Although she's my least favorite, I still like her. I think she's a very cute character(much better than Webby from Ducktales). And the villains were very original. Don Karnage & his air pirates always crack me up, Kahn is ice-cold and ruthless, and the Thembrians are always at least amusing.

As said before, the stories range from hilarious(Time Waits For No Bear, Romance of Red Chimp) to nothing short of touching(The Old Man & the Seaduck, Paradise Lost), to fun, funny & exciting adventures(In Search of Ancient Blunders & my favorite For Whom the Bell Klangs). These are only a few of my favorite episodes. Anyway, Talespin is Disney's best, aside from Gummi Bears Some reasons for this? GB had a decent amount of my favorite character(Cubbi), while TS didn't have enough of Wildcat. But in the end Talespin remains a classic. BOTTOM LINE- 10/10 6th best cartoon ever.@@@1 -This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.

All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.@@@0 -Like most other reviewers I have first seen this movie (on TV, never on the big screen), when I was a teenager. My Dad has always regarded this film highly and recommended it to me then, and I must say he was not only right, but this movie has stayed with me forever in the more than 2 decades since I saw it first time. I have seen it two or three more times since then (just a few days ago I gave it another watch) and it has not lost anything of its impact with time. It still a great and well worth to be seen movie! Manr regard Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY as one of the first and best later western, which had a realistic look at life in the old west, but the hardly known LAST HUNT is definitely the better movie and was even half a dozen years earlier. Actually it was probably 3 decades ahead of its time, or maybe it still is ...

Although thinking hard and having certainly seen 100s of western (I like this genre) I can not remember any western as bleak and depressive as this one. Two men bound together, partly by hate, partly by not seeming to have other choices, surrounded by beautiful Ms. Padget, a crippled old man and a young Inian, leading the life of buffalo-killers until fate reaches out for one of them.

Nobody who has ever seen this movie will be able to forget its ending and the last frames of this gem. When the camera moves on and away from Mr. Taylor a white buffalo skin comes into sight (on a tree)and echos from the past, when all the hatred began, are present again. Mr. Taylor has got his buffalo, but in the end the buffalo got him.

Aside from the top performances of everybody involved, the intelligent script and the great dialogue, it should also be mentioned, that THE LAST HUNT is superbly photograped, I have seldomely seen a western that well shot (aside from the ones directed by Anthony Mann, which are also all superbly photographed), that all the locations are cleverly chosen and that even the soundtrack fits the picture very well.

And director BROOKS is really a superb storyteller. Master craftsmanship!He has made quite a couple of really great movies and was successful in nearly every imaginable genre, but even in an as prolific career as this one, THE LAST HUNT still shines as one of his best, if not his best.

Definitely would deserve a higher rating, compared to the 7-something RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY enjoys.@@@1 -Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.

You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.

If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.

The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.

Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras.

"Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.@@@0 -In the year 1990, the world of Disney TV cartoons was certainly at it's prime. Shows like Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, DuckTales and Gummi Bears was already popular, and now Disney made another great cartoon and that cartoon brought the birth of the Disney Afternoon. That cartoon is called TaleSpin. It's about old Jungle Book character Baloo the Bear as he gets a job in the plane business. In the series he meets Kit Cloudkicker, former Air Pirate and good cloud surfer, business lady Rebecca Cunningham and her hyperactive daughter Molly. This series is very funny and has tons of great puns that you may not understand as a kid but understand later on in life. This is one cleverly written series and it's great to add to your DVD collection. Parents, buy this for your kids rather letting them watch all of those horrible Nickelodeon cartoons. If you liked TaleSpin, then check out "Darkwing Duck" and "Goof Troop". Spin it!@@@1 -I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat!@@@0 -Ahh, Talespin! What can I say that hasn't already been said about this great show? Nothing! This is without a doubt one of the most well-written shows I've ever encountered, live-action or animation. The newer stuff is way too dumbed down for my tastes, and some of the "mature" stuff I have to shoo kids out of the room for. But not Talespin.

The stories are engaging and very plausible. Some of them could even be stretched out to an hour or two for a movie. Episodes like Stormy Weather and Her Chance to Dream are very dramatic while still being enjoyable for kids and adults alike. Then there are the pure comedy episodes such as the Bluest of the Baloo Bloods and Stuck on you, where the emphasis is on hilarity. I can laugh myself to tears in a few choice ones.

The drama aspect is very lacking in most shows nowadays(at least, those which aren't specifically geared toward it), especially in cartoons. In the episode Stormy Weather for instance, Kit Cloudkicker decides that he's going to join an air circus, but Baloo believes that it would be too dangerous. In the biggest fight of the episode, Baloo yells at Kit to stay away from Daring Dan, to which Kit screams "NO! You can't tell me what to do! YOUR'RE *NOT* *MY* *DAD*!" and buries his face in his pillow. The next day he leaves for the air circus. This kind of drama is a rarity in a cartoon, and would be most welcome in the ones created nowadays.

The Characters have a lot of depth to them. Baloo is pretty much the way he is in The Jungle Book, plus or minus a few degrees of laziness. Rebecca is a cunning business woman whose ideas on getting money, while good in theory, are seldom good in practice. Molly is a cute little girl, but you can't let that deceive you. She can be a real hellion sometimes. Kit Cloudkicker is a darker character than the rest. He doesn't trust adults much unless they appeal to him, and he has a tendency to break off relationships. Watch his expression in Plunder and Lightning when he grabs the grappling hook: he looks as though he's prepared to put it right through a pirate.

In the end, it's the drama combined with the very real chemistry between the characters that makes this show #1 in my book. The relationship between Baloo and Kit is very real, almost father and son. This is demonstrated well in All's Whale That Ends Whale when Baloo takes Kit's word for it that Seymour is abusing the animals in his aquarium instead of siding with the other adults. Baloo and Becky's relationship is also realistic, due to Baloo's motivation for working comes from wanting to buy back the ol' Sea Duck, not necessarily a desire to help Rebecca. But something tells me that if he did get the Duck back he'd still do jobs for Rebecca.

The Sea Duck, not to mention all the other planes in the series, is pretty realistically designed. The plane's functions don't change once throughout the series(continuity like that is hard to come by also), and unlike most other "super-planes" of other cartoons, it doesn't have one single weapon on board(unless you count mangoes!), and relies instead on it's cunning pilot's great skill to get out of trouble. It's hard to think of a hero vehicle that doesn't have some sort of gun turret, laser cannon, or even a handgun somewhere on board. And the fact that they use their heads to get out of trouble is so hard to find in a cartoon nowadays. Plus it's just such a darn cool design!

This is definitely the best cartoon. Ever. Period. Definitely worth all ten stars!@@@1 -- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes.

- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting.

- My Verdict: Do not watch.@@@0 -Ever since I remember, I have loved airplanes and flying. I am now in college with a private pilot's license and looking to become a commercial. I could never remember why I was so obsessed with the subject until I came across my old Tail Spin tapes in my basement at home and it hit me, this was it. My parents bought every single tape they had and this was the only show I would watch as a kid. I had the theme memorized as I grew up and I can still re-cite it today. It is absolutely amazing and I plan on buying the DVD's soon! It really is great for children and adults and is absolutely timeless. I cannot get enough of this show.@@@1 -I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.

Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.

There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom.

The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.

And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.

There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more!

It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.@@@0 -Along with Darkwing Duck this is unfairly cancelled. Disney has been in decline since Tarzan and we need a show like this to get Disney back on track. Ed Gilbert and Jim Cummings were perfect for the voices of Louis and Baloo (sounds familiar?) The theme theme tune is also catchy. Out of all the villains, which are all great on their own merits, Tony Jay stands out as Shere Kahn. Louis and Baloo actually sound very similar to the voice overs in the Jungle Book, which isn't a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite inspirational! The animation was spot on, and the script had plenty of wit that has been severely lacking in animations for years. PLEASE BRING THIS SHOW BACK! 9/10. Bethany Cox@@@1 -After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.

The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.

Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.

The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.

The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.

This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.

I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.

My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?)

The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.

There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?)

No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.

I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.

For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.

1/10@@@0 -As for many on here I can't help but praise the Cast and Crew who developed Talespin and others they made throughout My Childhood, I as all who have commented here have thoroughly enjoyed the Quality of not just the animation but the quality of the story lines and the characters.

To Class this work of art as a "Cartoon" could never do talespin justice, In fact it's an insult to class it as a "Cartoon", Talespin is an Animation and nothing less, It is evidently the greatest work of genius to be produced at Disney to date, When Disney "Pulled" it from the air little did they realise what they did and I'm sure their souls have been tortured by regret ever since.

I'll take a moment to explain, From the first which is ducktales to the last which I think is Darkwing Duck, Disney has been plagued with failures due to political Correctness and have taken a Quantum Leap backwards since, They prefer Quantity over Quality now not to mention the room full of Monkey's for the story's, I couldn't have My children watching the mind-numbing "Cartoons" they throw out now in fear that they would all turn out to be homer Simpson some time in the future and 50% of the blame would be on me for permitting them to watch it, I couldn't let that happen, Which is why I have ALL of the shows from the late 80's to the mid 90's on a Harddrive so one day My children couldn't be corrupted by the "Cartoon Crap" of today and to Savour the last piece of childhood I have and to hold on to and I owe that all to Talespin.

Talespin to me is without a doubt the best Animation ever produced in the world on account of it's depth, Charm, Wit, Compassion, Emotion and lack of Truly bad quality and story lines of which many have today, Do You see any of that content in say "Ed, Edd and Eddie or anything else You can think of?, The rubbish produced today can be likened to some 3 year old's undecipherable Hyroglyph Depicting a Picasso.

The next time You watch an episode of Talespin; take a look at the woodgrain on any wooden object or building such as Higher for Hire and salivate over the quality of workmanship and effort put into this Animation, Even the one shot backgrounds were done as though they would use them again and again, The Buildings look true to the Art Deco movement which was popular in the time period depicted, Even the vehicles are true to life, OK not ALL of the Episodes Were Fantastic in animation but the lower grade scenes were covered up by the superior scenes so all in all it evened it all out by the end of the episode and You'd probably never even notice at all unless you were focused and have an attention to detail.

The one thing I love about this is what I like to call the "Deliberate Mistakes" or "Intended Mistakes" in each episode and some have two, For example in sheepskin deep where rebecca say's "You're up to something Baloo" and Baloo replies "Who, Me!, I'm as innocent as a schoolboy" take a look into rebecca's eyes, I won't spoil the rest of the Baloopers but just keep an Eye out next time.

Everyone elses comment's are bang on and 100% correct, I have nothing else to add that others haven't said already on here, Disney, WAKE UP and smell the coffee, You have been asleep for over a decade, Stop producing rubbish and bring back Quality into Animations and Stop producing "Cartoons", We have seen the proof of what You can do and We want it back as rapidly as possible.@@@1 -Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.

The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.

The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.

Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.

My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq.@@@0 -"Spin it!"

The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, "TaleSpin," the TV cartoon series that featured characters from "The Jungle Book." Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!

This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.

And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of "Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!"

10/10@@@1 -I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!@@@0 -If you are viewing this show for the first time, you may start wondering if you are in an alternate reality. Colorful and imaginative characters? Entertaining dialogue? Plots that seem to have some depth to them, even creating atmospheres of suspense and drama at times? I mean, this is a syndicated children's show right? This is the same venue that has brought kids such drek as "Pokemon", "Pepper Ann", "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", and "VR Troopers" (please note that three of the titles mentioned above are crass Japanese exports, courtesy of the Fox Network and Saban Entertainment). Don't worry, you are just sampling some of the quality fare that was available to kids during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Some examples of this period would be "Transformers", "Garfield and Friends", "Captain Power", and "C.O.P.S." (a cartoon NOT to be confused with the live action show on Fox). Besides these prime examples, Disney also returned to syndicated programs for kids, coming up with a lineup called "The Disney Afternoon". Aside from a dumbed-down show called "The Gummi Bears", early shows like "Darkwing Duck", "Duck Tales", and "Chip 'N Dale's Rescue Rangers" gave credence to the Disney animation teams that were also turning out theatrical classics like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "The Rescuers Down Under", and "The Great Mouse Detective". But above all these wonders shines "TaleSpin". The premiere of "Plunder and Lightning" was a two-hour thrill ride, and won an Emmy. Much to my delight, the rest of the episodes were up to par on the promise of the premiere.

While I enjoy the plots and dialogue, I guess for me the greatest attraction are the characters. There's Rebecca Cunningham, an independent female, but still fallible; Kit Cloudkicker, full of pre-teen angst and optimism; Louie, with his loyalty and support; Frank Wildcat, the most entertaining engineer since Scotty on the original "Star Trek"; Molly Cunningham, cute and witty, but with some depth that most child characters don't have, and of course in the middle of it all, there's Baloo, whom I would describe as a slobby version of James Bond. This is because whenever there's trouble, Baloo saves the day with the assistance of his sleeker-than-most, fastest-of-all Sea Duck (Read: James Bond's Aston Martin). Of course every great show has to have great villains, and TaleSpin doesn't disappoint here either. From the megalomania of businesstiger Shere Kahn, to the vain and always failing air pirate Don Karnage, to the hilarious and inept Soviet-satirized Thembrians. The animation is good, the music appropriate, and the episodes are (for me) the finest that children's programming has ever had to offer. Great fun for the WHOLE family!@@@1 -I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.

This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.

1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.

Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.

2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.

Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.

3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.

4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.

5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.

I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.

6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.

Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.

Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.

My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.

It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby.@@@0 -Brilliant kung-fu scenes, loads of melodrama, peculiar footwear symbolism and an unhappy (?) end makes Barefoot Kid an unforgettable film.

One of the silliest subtitles I've seen...@@@1 -this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.

transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.

its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.@@@0 -This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time.@@@1 -this is a terrible, terrible film!!!!!!!!!

first of all TOOO long. the longest movie i have ever seen.

the stories are all too Damn Over the Top!!!!

as a matter of fact there are too many stories that the Story line is Ruined.

the comedy wasn't Comedy!!!!! it wasn't funny at all....

the story is so repulsive and badly written that it doesnot matter if the characters live or die.......

i had some expectations from this movie......... but my expectations were crashed completely in the first few minutes......

the only thing good about this movie is the MUSIC...... and obviously Vidya Balan. she gives the best performance and stands out among all the senior actors...... she's just a new comer and yet she shines and makes the rest of the cast look so Pathetic!!!!! Govinda and the Blonde who playes his love interest also help saving this Disastrous movie. Govinda perfectly fits in the role of the Taxi driver. and the Blonde also gives a very subtle and consistent performance....

another Talented actress Ayesha Takiya is completely wasted in this movie!!!! so is priyanka!!!!!!!!! Akshay does his role well but it seemed too over the top!!!!! Anil and Juhi are also totally wasted......

the only one not wasted is Salman Because he has No Talent what so ever to be wasted!!!!!!!!!

all in all this is a very Impossible movie with Mishmashed screenplay and TOOO Masladar that the storyline is shaped according to the stupid comedy scenes. imagine how stupid this movie is!!!!!!

3/10 it is four hours long!!!! think and RETHINK before going to the cinemas!!!!! better Avoid it!!!!!@@@0 -I have seen this wonderful production, and I wonder if anyone can tell me anything about the actress who played the blacksmith's wife-I am not sure of her character's name. I went to BYU with her and lost touch with her-her maiden name was Kim Luke-and I wonder if anyone has any info on her. She is not listed in the credits. This production was outstanding, a tear-jerker on all accounts, superb acting by all. I guess I don't even want to put it in the general category of 'acting', more like 'portraying with feeling the amazing events that led to the opening of the Heavens for this the final dispensation'.....something like that. If anyone worked with Kim or has a website or something please let me know!!! She was fantastic in her role, by the way....Thanks, Melissa Thorne@@@1 -Six for the price of one! So it is a bonanza time for Cinegoers. Isn't it? Here it is not one, not two but all SIX-love stories, an ensemble cast of top stars of bollywood, plus all stories in the genre of your favorite top directors Johar, Bhansali, Chopra et al. You will get to see every damn type of love story that you enjoyed or rather tolerated for years now. So no big deal for you. Do you need anything more than this? No sir, thank you. Why sir? Enough is enough. Please spare us. They signed every top star that they manage to sign, whether required or not, so they end up making a circus of stars, believe it or not. Too crowded Every thing depicted here is exactly how it is prescribed in bollywood textbook of romances. Plus you have to justify the length given to each story, as each has stars. Therefore, it is too long-three hours plus. The gags are filmy. Characters are filmy. Problems, Barriers, situations, resolution … yes you guessed it right, again…. filmy-tried and tested. Same hundreds of dancers dancing in colorful costumes in background. Why they have no other work to do? All couples are sugary-sweet, fairy tale type, Picture perfect. All are good looking. Each story beginning in a perfect way and therefore should ends also in that impossible perfect manner? Too haphazard. You can't connect to a single story. Here you have everything that you already seen a million times. Bloody fake, unreal, escapist abnormal stories considered normal for more than hundred years since evolution of this Indian cinema. What a mockery of sensibilities of today's audience? Yes it could have worked as a parody if he just paid tribute to love-stories of yesteryear but alas even that thing is not explored. At least, Director Nikhil Advani should have attempted one unconventional, offbeat love story but then what will happen to the tradition of living up to the mark of commercial bollwood potboiler brigade? Oh! Somebody has to carry on, no. Imagine on one hand audience finds it difficult to sit through one such love story and here we have six times the pain. I mean six damn stories. I mean double the fun of chopra's Mohabbatein (Year 2000) In this age and time, get something real, guys. We are now desperate to see some not so colorful people and not so bright stories Oh, What have you said just now- come on, that is entertainment. My advice, please don't waste your time henceforth reading such reviews. Go instead, have some more such entertainment! Thank you.@@@0 -This is the most compelling and excellent performance that Robert Taylor ever gave. It even surpasses his wonderful performance as "Johnny Eager" coming a full 14 years after that film. His looks are still a wonder to see, but he has a maturity now that gives him the edge in this gritty, violent role. Charlie Gilson (Taylor) is the last of his breed, a buffalo hunter who kills not for the money but for the pleasure. His wild eyed killing of not only buffalo but human beings, is stunning to watch. He is basically a lonely man, needing the people around him, but they dislike him because of his sociopath behavior. His partner is Sandy McKenzie (Stewart Granger) who is sick of the hunt, and only goes along, because he is a failure at anything else. Along the way Charlie kills a family of Indians and captures the beautiful Debra Pagent. Charlie tries to seduce her to no avail, but sees that Sandy is interested in her also. Granger is kind of sad to watch, so fed up with the hunt, longing to go away with the girl and her baby. Lloyd Nolan as the drunken skinner is wonderful with his wise cracks and accordian playing. Russ Tamblyn plays the half breed trying to fit in a white world. The group is an odd mix of good and evil, young and old. In the end Taylor gets spooked by the buffalo, as many hunters before him had, and runs off leaving Sandy with the girl. Upon his return, that night Sandy leaves with the woman, setting Charlie off on a rampage of killing in a quest to get Sandy and have the girl for himself. The final confrontation comes in a snow storm and the last scene is so shocking that you will never forget it. It is Taylor's film all the way and he was truly a much underrated actor of the era.@@@1 -This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull.@@@0 -The best way for me to describe Europa, which is high on the list of my favourite films, is the exclamation that came from a companion after the film ended: "I didn't know films could be made like that". Entirely original in it's visual style, it is one of the best examples of what cinema can be. It's as far away from the "master and coverage" style of shooting as one can get; perfectly integrating many layers of image, sound, effects, props, dialogue, voice over, performance, editing, lighting, etc... all equal, none predominant. Despite Hollywood's "dialogue" myopia, cinema is not about dialogue, nor is it about beautiful lighting, action or music. It works best when all the elements are on an equal footing, where ONLY the BLENDING of those elements, in the order or combination in which they are presented, will communicate the idea. Reduce or eliminate the contribution of one element, and the film has no meaning. "Europa" is what cinema should strive to be.@@@1 -Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.

Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.

Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.

Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.

All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...@@@0 -Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and porno sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie.@@@1 -If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.

First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?

I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.@@@0 -I think the film is educational. However, it fails to treat the issue which sparked so much controversy: plural marriage. Also, the film fails to reveal what the LDS church espouses. Big opportunity was missed to tell the world what they actually believe. I could not get a clear idea of what it is LDS views are on central topics of religion.

I have many LDS friends and they are nice people. Would have been nice to get a clearer picture of how they view their prophet's more controversial statements. Maybe these statements are just too controversial to be treated in a film format, but it would have been great to hear the whole story of Joseph Smith's truly interesting life. After all, it gives insight into American thought on religion in the 18th century. Hope they do some documentaries on this fascinating subject, allowing historians to comment on Smith's life. We may have a Mormon president some day. After all, Smith ran for president.@@@1 -The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.

The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.

The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.

Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.

Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(@@@0 -I don't know what movie some of these other people watched, but they must have seen a different "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" than the one I saw.

I think the movie was both well-done and inspiring. I think it's definitely worth watching. It's apparent from the outset that a lot of care went into the making of this film. The background scenery is beautiful.

I think the film does a good job of portraying Joseph Smith both as a man and as a prophet. Joseph's spiritual experiences are portrayed with taste and reverence.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie.@@@1 -My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.

Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.

i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.

Happy Republic day to one and all :)@@@0 -Despite reading the "initial comments" from someone who curiously disliked the film -- (WHY IS THE ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT VERY FIRST ON THE LIST?)it was very nice to note that virtually everyone else loved it! Obviously the Church wanted to stress certain points and portray the prophet Joseph Smith in a positive manner ~ thats the whole idea. And in fact, those points were extremely effective. We already know Joseph Smith was human... but despite that, AND all of the horrific negative attempts stirred on by the adversary, it showed just how he was able to complete a remarkable, God-given work. I'd recommend it to anyone!@@@1 -This is a sad film made for sad people. I was sitting in theaters tearing my hair apart, wanting to break the chairs in front of me as the movie spitted out one cringe-inducing scenes after another. And there were people roaring with laughter behind me, which made me wonder what kind of films these people must be watching to actually enjoy this horse-s**t.

Nikkhil Advani has six stories with no plot and no interesting characters. The screenplay is dull, probably he was drunk when he was writing this film. There is no strong hold on any of these stories. Nothing new , nothing to hold the audience and filled with dialogs which you would have heard a million times before. One of the stories is about this couple not being able to have sex because of series of disasters taking place every time they want to do it. I mean seriously is this story really required? Its not funny, not creative but only proves that Advani has no sense of comedy. Another of the stories (which was probably the only story I was interested in) is based on a man's infidelity and that too ends in a lame age-old sati-savitri pati-parmeshwar crap. I have no idea what the Salmaan-Priyanka plot was all about. There was no issue in the plot for it to be a plot. She can't take Karan Johar's film because she has to marry Salmaan ?? Why can't she marry him and still take the film ?? or does Advani and Priyanaka just want to prove the world that it is in fact true that female actors cant be successful if they are married or that they should not act in films once they are married?? With six actors in the film obviously Advani cant produce the film all by himself. So he makes full use of sponsors like the Times group, shamelessly promoting their Filmfare magazines. And also some jewelery brand which the women in the film absolutely seem to adore!! I come to IMDb to give it the worst rating and i am shocked to see posts praising the film. It just goes to show the sad state of bollywood and how star struck the fans are. With fans like these, movies like Salaam E Ishq will be continue to be made and worse probably be a hit.@@@0 -As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward.

On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only "full length motion pictures" of the church's I had seen was "Legacy" and "My Best Two Years", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.

At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought "OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears." Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

See it & believe in it's powerful message!@@@1 -Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.

I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.

My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie.@@@0 -This film is a true and historical film. It is very useful to those researching the LDS church, because it is 100% true. It is an excellent film and I recommend it.

It is very factual, exciting, and motivational. There are some who think it is not factual, but it is.

It is about the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and about the prophet, Joseph Smith, who restored it. It has such events in his life as the disease that he had when he was a small boy, his courting Emma Smith, Emma, his wife, giving birth, and so on. But most importantly it reveals the restoration of the church.@@@1 -Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).

Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.

There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.@@@0 -This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone.@@@1 -We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.

What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.

Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.

Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.

And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.

Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.

My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...

Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!!@@@0 -The most amazing, spiritually uplifting movie about the restoration of the gospel. Far better than any other film, or movie made about the restoration thus far. If you haven't seen it, hop on a plane to Salt Lake and see it now. You won't regret it! You truly get a sense of what the first saints had to struggle through, putting complete and total faith in there prophet Joseph Smith. You finally get some sort of comprehension of the things the prophet had to fight through and the persecutions he and his people faced. If you have any questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints and our humble beginnings just watch this movie, it will make complete and total sense afterward.@@@1 -OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait

He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film

OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?

We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?

We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well

We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy

We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all

We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories

We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects

But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works

Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change

Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal

Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?

Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay@@@0 -This is one of the most spiritual movies I have ever seen. I headed up with about 150 people to St. George and we saw this movie in the visiting center of the St. George temple.. Not one person had dry eyes in the audience. Also, there were some non- religious and anti-Mormon people in the audience who felt the spirit of the movie and were touched by the captivating music and reenactment of the story of the pioneers and the hardships they faced because of their beliefs.

I recommend this movie for anyone who wishes to understand more about Joseph and the hardships that the pioneers went through. After all, it is apart of American History.@@@1 -It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week.

This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'.@@@0 -This movie makes a statement about Joseph Smith, what he stood for, and what the LDS church believes. With all the current media coverage of a certain fugitive people have confused the LDS church with the FLDS church and criminal fugitive Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is Not associated with the LDS church yet media groups internationally have asked for comments about Jeffs from The LDS church. Jeffs is not mentioned in the movie at all but I think that it is ironic that this movie with all it's points about Joseph also point away from the fews of the FLDS church and their leader at this time in the media world. This is a movie about Joseph Smith and a great one at that. Some of the most obvious differences between Jeffs and Joseph is portrayed in Joseph's humanity, acceptance and love. Jeffs views and opinions differ greatly from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and it is seen in this movie. Jeffs thinks of the "Negro" as devils. Joseph Smith knew they were children of god and gave up his wife's favorite horse to a African American (former slave) to buy his son's freedom. Joseph is shown doing housework for his wife Emma and is criticized by a member until Joseph tells him that a man may lose his wife in the next life if she chooses not to stay with her husband and that doing chores is a way to help and cherish your wife. Jeffs brought one of his polygamist wives to her knees in front of a class full of students by grabbing her braid and twisting it painfully till she came to her knees. Lastly Joseph participated with law enforcement and sought aid from the government at all times. Jeffs thumbs his nose at government and flees at all times.

I loved this movie and if you don't know much about Joseph Smith and what the LDS church believes, then this is the movie to see. And if you had confused the LDS Church with the FLDS church then you really need to get your act together. We are not much different from anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the Sanctity of marriage and the family, as well a patriotic to our homeland and country. We are all different as well just like you can find different protestants, Presbyterians, methodist, baptist and Catholics. What's important is our message and what we stand for. This movie trys to portray that but there is so much of Joseph's life that can't be covered in a mere 2 hour movie. This was a really great show.@@@1 -The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work!

In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.

But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.

That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.

To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.

Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.@@@0 -I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?!@@@1 -I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.

But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.@@@0 -Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.@@@1 -VERY dull, obvious, tedious Exorcist rip-off featuring a Doberman with red eyes - that's the extent of the special effects in this made-for-tv cheapie. Richard Crenna is about as animate as a chew toy. Very 70's dress & music only add to the torture. Should put you to sleep almost as fast as "The Corpse Vanishes", or "The Blue Hand". Practically worthless. MooCow says eaghhh what a stinky dog! :=8P@@@0 -Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.@@@1 -The acronymic "F.P.1" stands for "Floating Platform #1". The film portends the building of an "F.P.1" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, to be used as an "air station" for transatlantic plane flights. Based a contemporary Curt Siodmark novel; it was filmed in German as "F.P.1 antwortet nicht" (1932), in French as "I.F.1 ne répond plus" (1933), and in English as "F.P.1" (1933). Soon, technology made non-stop oceanic travel much more preferable.

Stars Conrad Veidt (as Ellissen), Jill Esmond (as Droste), and Leslie Fenton (as Claire) find love and sabotage on and off the Atlantic platform. Karl Hartl directed. Mr. Veidt is most fun to watch; but, he is not convincing in the "love triangle" with Ms. Esmond and Mr. Fenton. The younger co-stars were the spouses of Laurence Olivier and Ann Dvorak, respectively. Both the concept and film have not aged well.

**** F.P.1 (4/3/33) Karl Hartl ~ Conrad Veidt, Jill Esmond, Leslie Fenton@@@0 -I am stunned at the negative comments that I have read and can only assume that the people making such comments were less than honest. This is the most moving and real portrayal of Joseph Smith that I have ever seen. It was well acted to the point that at times I forgot that I was watching a movie. It brought Joseph's life of hardship, good-natured optimism, enduring faith in people and God, and ultimate sacrifice to life such in a way that frankly left me speechless and silent in awe. If anyone, of ANY Christian religion can watch this movie without being touched in some positive way--I would have to say it is a reflection of the individual and NOT the movie. I give the movie a "10" and encourage honest souls to view it. At the very LEAST it is an extremely heart felt portrayal of man who gave everything he had for what he believed...In a world where values and beliefs are ridiculed, this movie stands as a enduring reminder of the kind of people we are supposed to be- no matter what religious beliefs we hold.- Ann Pruitt-@@@1 -John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.

My Grade: D+@@@0 -I saw it at the Legacy Theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City this morning. I'm going to assume that one's level of enjoyment during this movie will largely be based on one's level of acceptance of Joseph's story.

However, that aside it was very well made, well acted, and had a nice score. If you get to Salt Lake City, it is a must to see it in the Legacy Theater. I have never been in a nicer theater as far as picture quality, sound quality and ambiance in my entire life...I wonder if the Church would let me watch Batman Begins there! Being that I'm LDS and regard Joseph as a prophet, I was touched in several places and was brought to tears quite a few times...which I presume is expected since they handed out tissues BEFORE the movie started! Anyway, I'm told that this film is available in several LDS Visitor Centers around the globe, if you have 70 minutes check it out because whether you believe Joseph Smith or not, he tells a fascinating story.@@@1 -The dialogue was pretty dreadful. The plot not really all that inspired beyond the obvious twist it presents. Not visually stunning. Actually visually annoying at times. Most definitely one of those films you find easier to finish if you keep one finger on the fast forward button. If you could watch it for free, have absolutely no other options open at the moment and you really dig seeing the little poltergeist lady... well maybe I'd recommend it to you, but not anyone else I could think of at the moment.@@@0 -After reading the comments to this movie and seeing the mixed reviews, I decided that I would add my ten cents worth to say I thought the film was excellent, not only in the visual beauty, the writing, music score, acting, and directing, but in putting across the story of Joseph Smith and the road he traveled through life of hardship and persecution for believing in God the way he felt and knew to be his path. I am very pleased, indeed, to have had a small part in telling the story of this remarkable man. I recommend everyone to see this when the opportunity presents itself, no matter what religious path he or she may be walking, this only instills one with more determination to live the life that we should with true values of love and forgiveness as the Savior taught us to do.@@@1 -I should have figured that any movie with the Poltergeist lady in it isn't going to be good. It actually starts out okay, but during the first murder scene you find out that the movie you're watching is a movie inside of a movie. There's people sitting in a movie theatre watching that movie. One girl in the audience is so annoying that I would have turned around and strangled her. A bit strange, but far from good.@@@0 -This is by far the most incredible movie I have seen in a long time. The actors gave wonderful portrayals of the characters in the movie. The story was accurately portrayed. The story starts out with a young woman from the British Isles and her father traveling by steamboat to Nauvoo, Illinois. She has become a member of the LDS Church and he has not. He thinks she is ridiculous for making the trip and is discouraging. She encourages him to read about Joseph Smith, the Prophet. This is where the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith begins. The movie accurately portrays his life and some of the history of the LDS Church at the same time. It was graphic at times, but was needed. The emotional expression was very believable, which caused my emotions to spill out. Filming was awesome. The way in which the story was presented was touching. After the movie was over, we just sat there unable to moved. I was stunned. For people who know very little of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, I would encourage you to see this. If nothing else but to gain some understanding of his life. For those who are members of the Church, I would encourage you to see it. It will increase your testimony of this most incredible man. This is a must see.@@@1 -A somewhat awkward spy mystery with a predictable plot about World War Two dangers. The mystery is whether or not Jane Graystone (Nancy Coleman) has amnesia. The best acting is done by Raymond Massey as Dr. Ingersoll, a good doctor turned evil. He is head of a spy ring attempting to get information from amnesiac Jane, coded information related to allied activities. Will she tell? Can she remember? Moroni Olson (as Mr. Goodwin) is convincing as an accomplice to Massey. The role played by John Garfield (as Dr. Lewis) is nothing short of disastrous. He seems so badly miscast that the casting has to be ranked as one of the worst in film history. It is unfortunate that so talented an actor is stuffed into a role which not befitting his talents. The movie is worth one look, despite being a half spy and half gangster film, and despite containing a parade of stereotyped characters. It's easy to forget this one, amnesia is not necessary.@@@0 -Thought at first this film would be your typical Western film, however, it turned out to be very interesting and kept me spellbound right to the very end, which turned out very unusual. Charlton Heston,(Sam Burgade),"Midway",'76, had past experiences with James Coburn,(Zach Provo),"Deadfall",'93, and Zach never forgave Sam and would stop at nothing to make sure he caught up with him and paid him back. Unfortunately, Barbara Hershey,(Susan Burgade),"The Portrait of a Lady",'96, managed to get caught up in this situation and found herself among sex starved men who never seemed to leave her alone. Sam Burgade had to make some very hard decisions and and I was quite surprised at the conclusion. This is a very entertaining film and the acting was outstanding.@@@1 -Alfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.

Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.

It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.@@@0 -Good western filmed in the rocky Arizona wilds. Lots of tough guys throughout; Cobern's character seemed to rock back and forth between a raging psycho and a laid back type. Several holes appeared in the picture, but not enough to offset it being exciting and worth seeing. One really dumb scene shows Heston emptying .45 cases of their powder and collecting it in a sack for the purpose of starting a fire. A. To gather that much gunpowder he would have needed a pack mule to carry the ammo. B. The grass was obviously dry: why not just drop a match on it and let 'er rip?@@@1 -If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.

May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.

Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?

Horrible!!@@@0 -"The Last Hard Men" is a typical western for the 70's. Most of them seem to be inspired by Sam Peckinpah. Also this one, but Director Andrew McLaglan is a John Ford Pupil and this can be obviously shown in many scenes. IMO the beginning is very good. In a certain way McLaglan wanted to show the audience a travel from the civilization to the wilderness. In the third part there are some illogical flaws and I complain a bit about Charlton Heston. He has to play an old ex-lawman named Sam Burgade but he is in a fantastic physical shape. I never got the feeling that he really has problems to climb on a horse or on a rock. For me he didn't looks very motivated as he usual do in most of his epic movies. Same goes to the beautiful Barbara Hershey who is playing the sheriff's daughter. Maybe both had troubles with the director or were unhappy with their roles. Hershey and Coburn are not showing their best but they are still good. If the scriptwriter had John Wayne in their mind as Sam Burgade? Also Michael Parks as modern sheriff is a bit underused in his role. On the other Hand there is James Coburn as outlaw Zach Provo. Coburn is a really great villain in this one. He is portraying the bad guy between maniac hate and cleverness. His role and his acting is the best of the movie.

Landscapes and Shootouts are terrific. The shootings scenes are bloody and the violence looks realistic. Zach Provo and his gang had some gory and violent scenes. What I miss is the typical western action in the middle of the movie. I would have appreciated a bank robbery or something similar. Overall it's an entertaining western flick. Not a great movie but above the average because of a great Coburn, a very good beginning and some gory and violent scenes.@@@1 -I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.

From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.

Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.

Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.

To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film.@@@0 -***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.

Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!

Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic "The Searchers" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.

The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.

Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.

***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good!@@@1 -- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.

- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.

- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.

- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.@@@0 -I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!

The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..

Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!

All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..

Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10.@@@1 -I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.@@@0 -The arrival of vast waves of white settlers in the 1800s and their conflict with the Native American residents of the prairies spelled the end for the buffalo...

The commercial killers, however, weren't the only ones shooting bison... Train companies offered tourist the chance to shoot buffalo from the windows of their coaches... There were even buffalo killing contests... "Buffalo" Bill Cody killed thousands of buffalo... Some U. S. government officers even promoted the destruction of the bison herds... The buffalo nation was destroyed by greed and uncontrolled hunting... Few visionaries are working today to rebuild the once-great bison herds...

"The Last Hunt" holds one of Robert Taylor's most interesting and complex performances and for once succeeded in disregarding the theory that no audience would accept Taylor as a heavy guy...

His characterization of a sadistic buffalo hunter, who kills only for pleasure, had its potential: The will to do harm to another...

When he is joined by his fellow buffalo stalker (Stewart Granger) it is evident that these two contrasted characters, with opposite ideas, will clash violently very soon...

Taylor's shooting spree was not limited to wild beasts... He also enjoy killing Indians who steal his horses... He even tries to romance a beautiful squaw (Debra Paget) who shows less than generous to his needs and comfort...

Among others buffalo hunters are Lloyd Nolan, outstanding as a drunken buffalo skinner; Russ Tamblyn as a half-breed; and Constance Ford as the dance-hall girl... But Taylor steals the show... Richard Brooks captures (in CinemaScope and Technicolor) distant view of Buffalos grazing upon the prairie as the slaughter of these noble animals...

The film is a terse, brutish outdoor Western with something to say about old Western myths and a famous climax in which the bad guy freezes to death while waiting all night to gun down the hero...@@@1 -Devil Dog sets your heart racing. It's brilliantly paced, the ending comes like a bolt out of the blue and plunges itself into the very centre of your being. You'll never look at your dog the same way again. In fact you'll start thinking of having it put down - BY A PRIEST! FANTASTIC!@@@0 -The Last Hard Men finds James Coburn an outlaw doing a long sentence breaking free from a chain gang. Do he and his friends head for the Mexican border from jail and safety. No they don't because Coburn has a mission of revenge. To kill the peace officer who brought him in and in the process killed his woman.

That peace officer is Charlton Heston who is now retired and he knows what Coburn is after. As he explains it to his daughter, Barbara Hershey, Coburn was holed up in a shack and was involved in a Waco like standoff. His Indian woman was killed in the hail of bullets fired. It's not something he's proud of, she was a collateral casualty in a manhunt.

Lest we feel sorry for Coburn he lets us know full well what an evil man he truly is. Heston is his usual stalwart hero, but the acting honors in The Last Hard Men go to James Coburn. He blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.

Coburn gets the bright idea of making sure Heston trails him by kidnapping Hershey and taking her to an Indian reservation where the white authorities can't touch him. He knows that Heston has to make it personal then.

Coburn's gang includes, Morgan Paull, Thalmus Rasulala, John Quade, Larry Wilcox, and Jorge Rivero. Heston has Chris Mitchum along who is his son-in-law to be.

The Last Hard Men is one nasty and brutal western. Andrew McLaglen directed it and I'm thinking it may have been a project originally intended for Sam Peckinpaugh. It sure shows a lot of his influence with the liberal use of slow motion to accentuate the violence. Of which there is a lot.

For a little Peckinpaugh lite, The Last Hard Men is your film.@@@1 -This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.

An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.

Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.

The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.

Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.@@@0 -This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.

Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.

THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.

Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.@@@1 -That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.

Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.

The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".

But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.

My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.@@@0 -As a huge fan of the original, I avoided this film like the plague when the bad reviews started coming in eight years ago, but I just finished watching this film and found it to be a really pleasant surprise.

Okay, if you are looking for a retread of the original, you're in for a big disappointment, but if you are looking for something quite different, a bit edgy and political, then this is the film for you.

Gregory is now thirty four and works as a teacher at his old comprehensive school, where he's being pursued by a fellow teacher and having sexual dreams about one of his students. When the student insists on meeting up with Gregory, a series of misadventures ensue that include torture, breaking and entering and all manner of unexpected twists and turns that left me feeling elated and moved.

If you are looking for something original, then I highly recommend this film. I only wish that more people had gone to see this when it was released and seen it for what it really is.@@@1 -The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.

The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.

I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.

The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.

Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.

It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller.@@@0 -A shift in outlook is neccesary to enjoy modern British films, one that somehow allows them to be seen in their own right and for their own qualities rather than by the criteria that American films are judged. Britfilm has to try hard to be gritty and finds it hard to make it, but at warmth British films can lord it over their otherwise overwhelming competitor.

This film fails not in its content but only in attaching itself to the predeccesor, so allowing it to be all to easily seen as the work of star and director somewhere near the end of their tethers. It's a couple of decades later, Gregory teaching and this time with two girls on his mind. He teaches at his school railing against human rights abuses. When students he's fired up find abuses in their midst he must face whether he's just all talk.

This is a subversive film in that there's not the usual worldly character of any American movie that you expect to do whatever he does, but a naive man boy who may still put everything on the line for principles. Maybe. It's certainly no protest-by-numbers though, being too warm. Where U.S. film may seem realistic because they're urban and gritty, this and other British films of recent years - those that don't try to match America for visceral thrills - are real because British humour reveals truths.@@@1 -Reed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.

While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)

Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination

My Grade: C-@@@0 -The good thing about this film is that it stands alone - you don't have to have seen the original. Unfortunately this is also it's biggest drawback. It would have been nice to have included a few of the original characters in the new story and seen how their lives had developed. Sinclair as in the original is excellent and provides the films best comic moments as he attempts to deal with awkward and embarrassing situations but the supporting cast is not as strong as in the original movie. Forsyth is to be congratulated on a brave attempt to move the character on and create an original sequel but the film is ultimately flawed and lacks the warmth of the original@@@1 -Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.

To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.

Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.@@@0 +Not to be confused with the British black comedy of the same name that came out in 1994. But this Shallow Grave is a worthy addition to the 80's backwoods slasher.

The plot goes = 4 sorority girls from a convent are planning the spring break of a lifetime in Florida, but they're plans are put on hold when one of them witness a man murdering a local woman, and when he realizes that he was seen, well let's just say it becomes a deadly game of cat and mouse and things get even worse when he turns out to be the local sheriff.

Shallow Grave in my opinion is one of the more enjoyable slashers that came out in the 80's, especially the late 80's which was when the slashers kinda went downhill, this was one of the few that didn't and this movie should be more well known, it's a pity it isn't. this is one film that actually confounds stereotypes (just try guessing who the final girl is going to be - I got it totally wrong). The principle cast are all likable and it's one of those movies that you kinda hope they all get away, which of course they don't. This, coupled with the fluffiness of the film's first half-an-hour jars (in a good way) with some flashes of real nastiness (the second murder provides a real jolt) and some unexpected sleaziness (even though this isn't a high budget thriller I didn't expect the topless scene where a woman is strangled with her own bra (accompanied by a hysterical religious radio broadcast), in a film from this late in the 80's).

There are one or two bad things about this movie, well not bad just minor, like the sub plot with the two teenage boys which doesn't go anywhere and the ending which was stupid and plus the Deputy inability to follow logic. There aren't any sharp implements in SHALLOW GRAVE but, to my mind at least, it's a slasher flick through and through. The scenes where the girls are hunted through the woods by the malevolent Sheriff are tense and exciting.

All in all a very enjoyable and worthwhile slasher, with great performances from all four of the main girls and that psycho sheriff.@@@1 +I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.

The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be "THE 4TH MAN." The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.

The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.

Not that I have anything against "shocking" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.

So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.@@@0 +Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go "ape" over Buddy.@@@1 +I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.

This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.@@@0 +I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.@@@1 +There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.@@@0 +This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8@@@1 +The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.

SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.

With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.@@@0 +This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines@@@1 +OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.

Good things about the movie: imagery

Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors@@@0 +This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.

I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.

A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.@@@1 +I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.

It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.

And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?

It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.@@@0 diff --git a/data/part_data_all/train_9.txt b/data/part_data_all/train_9.txt index d2a1a54..3e01756 100644 --- a/data/part_data_all/train_9.txt +++ b/data/part_data_all/train_9.txt @@ -1,500 +1,300 @@ -Somewhere near the bottom of the film studio ladder you can find companies like U.F.O, Troma and beneath them lie Seduction cinema.

Seduction is a direct to video production company that specialize in lesbian themed, non-hardcore erotic movies. It has developed a very dedicated fan base that purchase each new title as they are released but sadly the company has become too closely associated with frequent star Misty Mundae. I say sadly because recent mainstream interest and her appearance on the show Masters of Horrors has caused her to set her sights a little higher than the zero budget S.C efforts which forces the company to find a new identity. But back in their glory days they released this film on a very appreciative world.

The gorgeous Misty Mundae is forced to attend a boarding school at the request of a absent father. At the school she meets her absurdly hot room-mate played by Ruby Larocca who immediately has designs on her but the headmistress (Barbara Joyce) has other plans. In typical S.C style the movie stops every ten minutes for a extended sex scene but unlike most of their efforts this one has a somewhat interesting story and a couple of good performances. Ms. Larocca appears to be having a great time as the sexual predator who views Misty as a tasty meal and Darian Caine makes a welcome (though brief) appearance as Satan. This is the sort of film that Jess Franco would crank out in the 70s (although this one does not have the hardcore sex that Franco was always willing to throw in for foreign sales) and fans of that madman's work would be wise to give this one a go.

To me, as a long time zero budget cinema fan (and Troma worshiper), I came across the Seduction cinema films through their parody films (Playmate of the apes, Who wants to be a erotic billionaire) but I actually prefer their more original works. You either see past the low budget and occasionally weak acting or you get hung up on these things and just hate all of these films. For me the most obvious thing that unites these no-budget movies is a real sense of fun. These low budget companies are able to create their own unique style which gives the viewer something very different from the bland, by the numbers, studio efforts that load up the multiplexes.

If you have never seen a Seduction cinema film either this or Sin Sisters (featuring both of the Mundae sisters) are excellent choices to begin with. This one is a fun, fast paced film (although the frequent exterior shots of the school do get a little old) and the DVD is totally loaded with extras including a ton of previews of other company offerings, a great behind the scenes featurette and some deleted scenes including a alternate opening. I do recommend you pass on the disc's bonus feature, the first film by director, as it is quite weak and not really worth viewing.@@@1 -This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?@@@0 -I have to say that this TV movie was the work that really showed how talented Melissa Joan Hart is. We are so used to, now, seeing her in a sitcom and I really hope that a TV station will show this TV movie again soon as it will show the Sabrina fans that MJH shines in a drama. Seen as we have watched her on Sabrina now for now 5 years and so to give the viewers a taste of her much unused talent would be a plus. Melissa plays her role so well in this wanting her parents "done away" with so she can be with the guy she loves. One thing that all Sabrina viewers will notice, Melissa works with David Lascher in this, well before he took the role of Josh on Sabrina. So it would be kind of neat to see this currently whenever it gets aired again. Hopefully MJH gets some good roles in movies or even in more TV Movies, sort of like Kellie Martin who has always shined in TV Movies. Lots of unused talent waiting to bust out when it comes to Melissa Joan Hart, you shine always Melissa!!!@@@1 -I really wish that when making a comedy, the people actually tried to make it funny. This is a film that you can sit through, but nothing is special about it. After watching it, you will say that it was alright. It was not boring to watch, but gave the audience no jokes to laugh at. Entertainment should mean that you actually get something more than an o.k. story. This movie wanted to be "Tootsie", but instead it failed.

I gave it a 1 out of 10.@@@0 -I have seen it & i like it Melissa plays her part well. It was actually believable. My brother in law saw it with my sister & i and when i mentioned to my sister that i forgot it was based on a true story (i had seen it a few years ago.) he said just because its on lifetime you think its true & both my sister & i were like it was so anyway i was wondering if anyone knew what murder it was or like who was really involved was because i want to prove it to him. I love lifetime movies especially the ones that are true, or just the ones that teach a good lesson. I thought I saw something about it a week ago but i cant remember where any help would be appreciated.@@@1 -I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.@@@0 -This movie is totally wicked! It's really great to see MJH in a different role than her Sabrina character! The plot is totally cool, and the characters are excellently written. Definitely one of the best movies!!@@@1 -I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.

OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.@@@0 -I like the movie. Twisted Desire had Jeremy Jordan,one of my favorite and one of the cutest actors ever. Melissa Joan Hart is a good actress. I've seen most of her movies but all of Jeremy Jordan's. The thing i dislike about Twisted Desire is when "Nick" gets arrested and "Jennifer" rats him out. Twisted Desire is my second favorite movie. My first is The Goonies. But i still love Jeremy Jordan.@@@1 -Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.

It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.

However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.

Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.@@@0 -I really enjoyed this documentary about Kenny and Spencer's attempt to pitch "The Dawn". Was a great look at how outsiders try to get to the inside to make it big.

The story was put together well and organized in an interesting manner that made the film flow well. Certainly worth a watch. My only complaint is that their appeared to be no closure. Perhaps that is part of the point. We expect it but in reality that is not what happened (or usually happens).

The film is also a great way to see the personality of Kenny and Spencer outside of their Canadian television show. You can see a bit of what is yet to come.

I look forward to a chance to see The Papal Chase.@@@1 -A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.

This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.

My Grade: D@@@0 -hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye@@@1 -'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.

Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh!

If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-

my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).@@@0 -(WARNING: minor spoilers)

I ran into this one partway through and watched from there, not knowing what it was or what the plot was. It certainly held my attention; I didn't know until the ending that it was based on a true story! The guy she used to do the dirty deed came out looking like a seriously nice guy who just got his head twisted around by a devious girl; I have to question how true to life that portrayal is. Anyone who would murder a husband and wife as they slept just can't be entirely nice. Still, I did have some sympathy for him, as he had been set up and taken advantage of; that much was made clear.

My main complaint is with the ending (here comes the biggest spoiler! skip this paragraph if you don't want to learn it). A few minutes before it ended, there seemed no way for the truth to be discovered. The way it got discovered was in a "sting" operation, but my question is: how did the police get convinced to go along with it? The movie didn't show us that, and it seemed a bit too convenient absent the explanation of how they were persuaded to do it.

I think the way they handled that was done for dramatic purposes, as the omission of the explanation lent an aura of suspense to the crucial scene which otherwise wouldn't have been there (we would already have known what the scene was about, and what was going on with Brad in it).

Otherwise, this is a pretty good film; I give it 7/10. It made me think. Now I'm interested to find out the facts of the real case.

One more thing: the movie was done in 1996. Some of the reviews here seem to be treating it as a more recent movie.

P.S. Meadow Sisto is lovely. I hadn't seen her before. She can act a little, too (always a plus in her line of work, LOL).@@@1 -First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.@@@0 -The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.

The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.

Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"

I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out.@@@1 -This movie was awful. I had a very difficult time watching this all the way through. I didn't get the point of the movie. What was the point of this movie? The soundtrack was bad, acting was bad and the story uninspiring. The two main characters in the movie were very boring and their dialog was uninteresting. There was no chemistry among any of the cast members. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that most of the actors were first timers. The movie could have easily been cut down to about an hour and half without losing the plot. That indicates how many useless scenes there were in the movie. I would have rather ha a root canal during the two hours of the movie. I want those two hours back! If you want to watch good, funny movie that is family friendly and made by a bunch of mormons, watch Napoleon Dynamite instead.@@@0 -When I was flicking through the TV Guide, and came across "Twisted Desire" on the movie section, I read it's description. Three words caught my eye "Melissa Joan Hart" ...I find her role in "Sabrina: The Teenage Witch" absolutely vile, I hate those kind of programs, so I was just thinking that it was going to be a boring old, love story starring her...Little did I know.

It finally started on the television, I had my bucket ready in case I were to puke over it's cheesiness or soppiness, you know what I mean. At first, you think she's just a nice, ordinary girl who's in love, but has mean parents. Then when you find out she's manipulated her boyfriend into killing her parents, so she could be with her TRUE love, you're like "Whoa". You just don't expect this sort of role for that sort of actress. She played her role very well in my opinion, I never expected her to be able to act like such a bitch, and voilà, she did it perfectly! Congrats to her, the movie was very good, I'd definitely watch it again and recommend it to others.@@@1 -Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.@@@0 -Twisted Desire (1996) was a TV movie starring Melissa Joan Hart. Melissa's character, Jennifer Stanton, a seventeen-year-old seduces her current boyfriend Nick Ryan into murdering her two parents. The movie is based on the 1990 murders of the parents of 14 year old Jessica Wiseman. Jessica had her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Christopher Thomas shoot and kill her parents! Thomas was executed in 2000! Jessica was released from prison when she turned 21 years old. Evidence now suggests that it was Jessica who fired the fatal shot that killed her mother. Jessica is known to now be residing somewhere in the state of Virginia.@@@1 -The story of the film was as simple minded as its morality: Go find a girl, marry her, live with her happily ever after. Though the film had some fine moments and turns, most of it stayed at the surface of what might have been shown in a film with the same storyline.

The Baptist/Mormon struggle was only touched superficially and was mocked about, probably intentionally. A more interesting story would have been a mixed couple.

If you wanna see a film which doesn't need too much concentration, which can be watched by the whole family and which teaches your children modest and conservative values (besides the modern tolerance stuff ;-) ), you will be fine with this film. Might be shown at a family-home-evening...@@@0 -I recently stumbled across this film on TNT five minutes into it, while on vacation in Florida... (hey there has to be some down time in the hotel, right?) I was initially surprised to see Melissa Joan Hart in any feature length film on TNT. I mean "Drive Me Crazy" isn't THAT old already, is it?

But I stuck with it, and was thoroughly surprised and entertained. Melissa plays her role as the psychotic Jennifer excellently. The supporting cast (Nick, the ex-con boyfriend; Karen, her best friend; and her life-controlling parents) all added a great degree of believability. The twist at the end was a nice closure to this tale of the girl who always seemed to be one step ahead of everybody.

If you get a chance, check it out!

@@@1 -I expected this to be a lot better. I love Tim Burton's work, so I was really excited to see these online short films. Well, they weren't at all what I had expected.

I don't really know what exactly it is I don't like. I guess they're just sort of dull. The sound bothers me, and most of the characters, although I loved Roy the Toxic Boy, and Stainboy.

The Match Girl episode probably bugged me the most, although it was pretty funny.

I also don't like the way some of the characters die. Like how Match Girl basically set the gas station on fire, or how the Girl Who Stares died, in general. Roy's death was amusing, surprisingly. Death by a car freshener. Very original ;-) That made me laugh so hard...

There are some things that aren't appropriate for kids. Just some language and gore. That's about all I have to say! 3/10@@@0 -Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this?@@@1 -i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan...@@@0 -The Woman In Black was a British made for TV movie which was first broadcast on the BBC on Christmave Eve of '89, and again in '92. I believe it made a round on American TV on A&E. It was released on VHS in Britain in the early 90's but went out of print. A U.S. company released it on DVD later, but that version also sold out. According to the website of the author of the book, the rights to the movie are now owned by someone else and that it won't be released again, and that there are unofficial bootlegs being sold on ebay.

I first heard about this movie just recently on a message board and had to check it out. I found a copy on ebay for about 28 bucks. It's certain to be a counterfeit from a seller in the far east, even though the DVD says, "made in Canada," ha ha. But it's a good copy, and you can't really fault the bootleg labels for releasing stuff that is rare, out of print, and lost in legal disputes.

I love the movie. It's a period piece set in the 1920's, with all the very authentic and quaint British settings of that time. The Woman In Black is very atmospheric and dark. For the most part, the movie is very low-key, but effective and scary. There is no self indulgent gore, violence or much at all in special effects, but The Woman In Black is still able to create absolutely chilling moments. It's a chilling classic styled ghost movie. The movie itself looks like it could have been made in the 1930's except for the color. Without all the flash of all the modern horror movies, I'm afraid this film will always just be a lost gem. For me, it places itself as one of my all time favorites.@@@1 -This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.

Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."

In conclusion: Absolute human waste.@@@0 -Yes, a true classic! This is what British drama is all about,realism and the minimal use of special effects (and over inflated budgets). I last saw this drama when it was last screened on British terrestial TV in 1994. It truly should be viewed by everyone who likes a scary plot,no big names but non-the-less great acting.Sadly the copywrite is now owned by someone unknown and as such this great drama is unlikely to be aired anytime soon.I myself recently acquired The Woman In Black on VHS,so now once again I shall be able to enjoy this truly great British drama. You should try and enjoy it too!

Mark R. Horobin@@@1 -Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10@@@0 -The Woman In Black is fantastic in all aspects. It's scary, suspenseful and so realistic that you can actually see it happening in real life. I first saw this on the TV back in 1989, and with all the lights off and the volume turned up, it was probably the most creepy experience of my entire life. I managed to get hold of a copy, and now, I make sure to bring it out every Halloween and show it too unsuspecting family members, who have no idea what they're in for, and all I can do is laugh with glee. As for the film:

It starts out with a young lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is assigned by his firm to go to the market town of Crythin Gifford to settle the papers of a recently deceased client - Mrs. Alice Drablow.

This film starts off as a reasonably solid and interesting ghost story. But then, Arthur attends the funeral, and from that scene on, we do not feel safe. We are constantly on edge and biting our nails, and that goes on for the next hour or so, until the final, thrilling finale.

A warning to all new viewers though: do not watch this alone...@@@1 -As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".

There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.@@@0 -An hilariously accurate caricature of trying to sell a script. Documentary hits all the beats, plot points, character arcs, seductions, moments of elation and disappointments and the allure but insane prospect of selling a script or getting an agent in Hollywood;and all the fleeting, fantasy-realizing but ultimately empty rites of passage attendant to being socialized into "the system." Hotz and Rice capture the moment of thinking you're finally a player, only to find that what goes up comes down fast and in a blind-siding fashion;that for inexplicable reasons, Hollywood has moved on and left you checking your heart, your dreams, and your pockets. Pitch is a must-see for students in film school to taste the mind and ego-bashing gantlet that is, for most, the road that must be traveled to sell oneself and one's projects in Hollywood. If your teacher or guru has never been there, they can't tell you what you need to prepare for this gantlet. To enter the"biz," talent is necessary but far from sufficient@@@1 -The concept of this made-for-TV horror movie is ludicrous beyond words, but hey, it was the late 1970's and literally all stupid horror formats were pretty damn profitable, so why not exploit the idea of a satanically possessed dog? The plot of "Devil Dog" is easy to describe to fans of the horror genre: simply think of "The Omen" and replace the newborn baby boy with a nest of German Shepard pups! Seriously, I'm not kidding, that's what the movie is about! During the opening sequence, members of some kind of satanic cult buy a female dog in heat only to have it impregnated by Satan himself. You'd think that the Lord of Darkness has other things on His mind than to fornicate with a German Shepard and take over the world one evil puppy at the time, but apparently not. Exactly like little Damien in "The Omen", one of the puppies is taken in by model family and grows up to become a beautiful and charismatic animal. But Lucky – that's the dog's name – is pure evil and liquidates annoying neighbors and nosy school teachers in derivative and tamely executed ways. He also inflicts his malignant character on the family wife and children, but he cannot force the father (Richard Crenna) to stick his arm into a lawnmower because he's a "chosen one". The whole thing becomes too moronic for words when Crenna eventually travels to Ecuador to search for an ancient wall painting and gets advice from an old witchdoctor who speaks perfect English. I guess he learned that living in isolation atop of a mountain his entire life. Director Curtis Harrington ("What's the matter with Helen", "Ruby") and lead actor Richard Crenna ("Wait until Dark", "The Evil") desperately try to create a suspenseful and mysterious atmosphere, but all is in vain. Scenes like cute puppy eyes spontaneously setting fire to a Spanish maid or a dog dodging bullets without even moving evoke chuckles instead of frights, and not even spooky musical tunes can chance that. The "special" effects are pathetic, especially near the end when the Satan-dog mutates into an utterly cheesy shadow on the wall. "Devil Dog" is a truly dumb movie, but it's definitely hilarious to watch late at night with some friends and loads of liquor. There are entertaining brief cameos of Martine Beswick ("Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde") as the terrifying cult queen and R.G. Armstrong ("The Car", "The Pack") as the evil fruit, vegetable and puppy salesman. And, yes, that annoying daughter is the same kid who gets blown away complaining about her ice-cream in Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13".@@@0 -A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.

Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it… expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.

Anyhow what the British TV presentation of "The Woman in Black" effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does…. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.

Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.

This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse.@@@1 -I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.

The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.

Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.

All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.

For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism.@@@0 -This is a plain old spooky ghost story. I showed it to some friends of mine in my movie club, and they were kept spellbound until the ending! No blood or gore- just good old fashioned suspense. It starts out right from the beginning, and builds and builds. The ending is a real twist that caught me unawares.

Well directed and well acted. It is also a "period piece"- set in the 1920s- which added to the atmosphere.

I was so impressed I got the book by Susan Hill from Amazon. The movie follows the book rather closely.

It's a shame it's not readily available on DVD. My copy is VHS. This along with "Haunted" are probably two of the best Ghost Stories I've ever scene. Which just goes to show that a little creativity outdoes "in your face" gore any day!@@@1 -Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.@@@0 -...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.

All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.

If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!!@@@1 -To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.@@@0 -...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release.@@@1 -I like Brad Pitt enormously. He is an actor with brains and wit, not to mention face, pectorals and all the rest. Since I saw him in "Thelma and Louise" a thought has been bothering me, who does he remind me of? "Troy" did it for me. He is the new Brigitte Bardot. The differences are obvious of course. Male, American etc but Brigitte Bardot comes to mind nonetheless. He is so beautiful that he is at his most effective when he plays against it. "Kalifornia" "12 Monkeys" "Fight Club" "Snatch" His self deprecating humor makes him human, almost accessible. Fortunately "Troy" will soon be forgotten. Only still photographs with Pitt, semi naked in ravishing sprint positions will decorate the walls of legions of salivating fans. Strange, "Das Boot" is one of the great films of the second part of the 20th Century. What is Wolfgang Petersen doing directing this? Well, I suppose it would be very hard to say no at the chance of working with the new Brigitte Bardot.@@@0 -A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed.@@@1 -Went to see the movie "Troy" this afternoon. Here's what I learned:

Contrary to popular opinion and history in general, Greek men were not gay. EVER. This was clearly established immediately at the start of the film and reinforced every five minutes or so thereafter. So it is safe for American dudes to see this movie.

Helen of Troy always had impeccable hair and makeup. She looked gorgeous in all of her brief cameo scenes which, though numerous, were probably all filmed on the same day, one after the other, with the director saying, "Alright, now look beautiful . . . good ... OK, now look frightened ... good... now look depressed ... good ... now look interested . . . good ... now look beautiful again ... good..."

Most Greek and Trojan men had British accents. Those with American accents couldn't act.

Trojans looked just like Greeks, but they tended to stay on the right side of the screen.

Brad Pitt does not blink on camera.

Helen of Troy's biggest line was, "They're coming for me."

Trojan music sounded remarkably like modern Bulgarian music.

Brad Pitt's thighs go all the way up.

Achilles had a young male friend with whom he was very close, but it's OK. They were cousins. Never mind what history says.

Peter O'Toole can tell an entire story with just an expression.

Trojan gods apparently all had Greek names, but their statues either looked Egyptian or like Peter O'Toole in drag.

Greek men never touched each other unless they were fighting, much like American men.

All of the thousands of extras in the movie had exactly the same skin color... Light Egyptian, by Max Factor.

Troy had only three women.

There were lots of blond Greeks, which is good news for Brad Pitt, who would otherwise have really stuck out.

Despite their coastal desert locale, Greeks had the uncanny ability to find unlimited amounts of timber to build fires, funeral pyres, Trojan horses and the like.

British actors look silly with Greek hairdos.

Brad Pitt changes expression only when the sun is shining directly in his eyes.

Greek soldiers fought constantly, but their outfits always looked impeccable.

Greek soldiers wore underwear under their skirts.

Apparently Greek temples were always in ruins, even back when they were all new.@@@0 -I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!!@@@1 -Hello there,

This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.

I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).

Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work.

Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'

Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work.

I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.

Cheers

Alex@@@0 -There is nothing remotely scary about modern "horror" which is an insult to the word "horror". Freddie Vs Jason, the Scream movies, Cabin Trash, and especially Stephen King's infantile attempts - he's recycled every story from The Monkey's Paw to whatever, often in the same story - at horror in both writing and on film (except for Kubrick's version of The Shining which actually was scary, unlike King's books which are as frightening as my big toe - the left one, which still has the nail.

But The Woman In Black is that rare modern film that will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. This is the way it should be done; the director creates tension, and the scariest ghost ever actually seen simply by having her suddenly turn up standing still somewhere or other with that incredible look on her face. Then he brings it all to a ghastly disturbing close. He's learned his lessons from the masters who knew how to make horror - Val Lewton (original Cat People) and Robert Wise (a Val Lewton disciple and director of the Haunting and The Body Snatcher), Jacques Tournier (another Val Lewton disciple who directed a truly horrifying zombie film, not the gross rubbish Raimi did (gross isn't scary, folks, it's just gross), and Lewis Allen (The Uninvited), and of course Jack Clayton's turn on Henry James The Innocents, and the way the master of suspense, Hitchcock, can still bring you to the edge of your seat even with a slow-building and burning period piece like Under Capricorn.

TEN STARS...@@@1 -I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.

And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.

And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.

I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie.

Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?

I am so disappointed it hurts.@@@0 -The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.

There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!

A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing!@@@1 -I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right).@@@0 -How much could the general Hollywood director learn from this movie? All... when it comes to actually scaring people. This movies truly shows that it is possible to really frighten and scare a viewer, and that monstrous monsters and long knifes never will be the best way of achieving this. All who love a real psychological thriller must see this movie... it is the best of it's kind.@@@1 -I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!@@@0 -I gave this film an 10/10 with some reluctance as it's hard to praise something that so haunted and terrified me for years. The sheer menace on the woman in black's face is just pure horror and the accompanying music just worsens the dread.

I saw this when it was first on TV when I was 10 and it really did disturb me for years. I'm fascinated by the fact that so many other users have said this too. So many movie reviews go on about how disturbing or terrifying a film might be but you can believe all those who have posted on this board, this really is incredibly powerful stuff. I mean I really like horror films and generally find them quite funny more often than not, but this really is menacing and will probably disturb most people. I haven't seen it since I was 10 and I'm tempted to watch it again but fear I might have some sleepless nights. I can't quite put my finger on what it is exactly, but I think it's something to do with the fact that fear is the Woman's greatest weapon and that we, as viewers, are just as susceptible as we feel the fear so intensely. It's remarkable that other viewers' feelings are so unanimous.

I've also seen the stage play, which was an excellent production...but nothing can compare to this.@@@1 -The box for "To Die For" suckered me in -- a shirtless hunky guy and the promise of some laughs and sex. There was plenty of Thomas Arklie (Simon), who's easy on the eyes, but no laughs and little sexiness.

The couple, Mark and Simon, have allegedly been together several years, but neither character is interesting enough to care about, so it's hard to imagine that they care about each other. The fault seems to lie in the script, not the performances; both actors do the best they can with what they're given.

The ending is sappy and unaffecting (well, not totally unaffecting; I felt relief that it was over).

If you're looking for a movie about gay relationships and AIDS that's funny, "Parting Glances" is far better.@@@0 -Credited by Variety to be one of the greatest documentaries to ever come out of Canada. Al Pacino, Roger Ebert, Neil Simon, Matt Dillon as well as a constant slew of celebs make this film a Canadian classic. The film is really best described as "Roger & Me" meets "The Player". Watch as Kenny Hotz and Spenny PITCH their script to the big boys of Hollywood. Called the only American film to ever come out of Canada, This film opened the Toronto Film Festival in 1997, Winner of the 'Best Indie Film Award Toronto'. Europe premier was at the prestigious HOF film fest in Germany. U.S.A. premier U.S. Comedy Festival Aspen 1999. More information available at www.kennyhotz.com@@@1 -I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.

However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.

Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV.@@@0 -Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.

Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more.

I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.

Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.

The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.

This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.

Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama.@@@1 -I had read a few positive reviews of this film, and was truly surprised at how dreadful the whole thing was. Positioned as some cross between an AIDS-related story and some kind of "Ghost"/"Blithe Spirit" tale, this film can't always make it's mind up what it wants to be.

Simon and Mark are a gay couple who have an "open" relationship - Simon is able to have anonymous (though safe) sex on the side when he wants. Mark is HIV+ and he and Simon don't seem to have a sex life anymore. When Mark dies, Simon - who has made a habit of shutting off his emotions after being rejected years ago by his father - tries to erase his memory and just get on with being a bachelor. Not that his behavior before Mark's death was much different. But Mark returns in ghostly form and foils his various trysts, while getting Simon to open up and admit his true feelings.

Unfortunately, Simon is such a selfish SOB, it's impossible to feel any empathy toward him for most of the film. By the time he is supposed to be more sympathetic, it's too late to care. Mark, on the other hand, follows in Demi Moore's footsteps from "Ghost," by crying profusely throughout the movie.

There is a bizarre switch in tone after Mark returns. Suddenly we get some lame attempts at humor, a la the TV show "Bewitched." But that doesn't last long. Once Simon's emotional health is at stake, the whole thing becomes increasingly mawkish, with amateurish attempts to jerk at your heartstrings. The finale, with a gold-plated muscle-boy angel guiding a tearful Mark to heaven while a chastened, grief-stricken Simon waves goodbye is just stupefying, chiefly because it isn't intentionally funny.@@@0 -This film gave me nightmares for months and I'm 17. This is the scariest movie ever made! That is no exaggeration!! I saw this movie at school in English lessons and no one else was scared which amazed me. After reading other reviews I'm glad I'm not the only person who found this so scary!!@@@1 -This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands.@@@0 -I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem.@@@1 -What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.

Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"@@@0 -Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out.@@@1 -as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.@@@0 -I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!).

Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end...

I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :)@@@1 -"What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"@@@0 -I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/

I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.

The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.

I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?

Thanks,@@@1 -Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.@@@0 -Whilst I have loved haunted house movies such as Amityville and Poltergeist, this made for TV adaption of Susan Hills book packs a huge punch on the horrors of Hollywood.

With a brilliant cast (many of which star in Heartbeat and other TV dramas), great acting, and fantastic setting (which portrays 1920's life convincingly), it has all the right ingredients to entice the viewer into what is a powerful ghost story.

Herbert Wise did not need blood, violence, or gore to send chills down the spines of an audience. Using your own imagination, the Woman In Black is a figure of fear and dread, and whose presence is never absent once she first appears.

The main character Arthur Kidd, a solicitor, learns about his unseen spectre on his mission to settle the estate. The widow dies and Arthur spends few nights inside her dreary home in which he notices many oddities, which may haunt him for some days. Some of the scenes are very unsettling and claustrophobic, particularly the locked room which opens itself, which turns the generator off and closes Arthur in darkness. The film becomes more harrowing the more you put yourself in Arthurs shoes, and his efforts to shake this ghost off. The writer puts many chilling additions into the story, an example being the tin soldier's re-appearance. One is eager to learn the meaning of it all. The fact we never really learn that much about the widow, leaves more to the imagination and makes it all the more unsettling.

The widow for the most part, looks vicious and intimidating. The scene after winding the generator sent the chills down me, a woman who appears out of nowhere on isolated marshy land with a howling wind – having been on such properties myself I can appreciate how isolating this is. And the scene in the inn was perhaps the most horrible things I've seen, one I don't wish to watch in a hurry or show to elderly relatives. I have often woken up at night thinking she was behind me in my sleep.

The Woman In Black is a great TV movie and a lost gem. I agree to some extent the Internet hype for this film has been totally overblown and can see why people were disappointed after spending the best of £50 on it, but I think the net has defeated hidden gems because it makes films like these over-exposed. I think it's still brilliant and fantastically acted and I consider it the greatest ghost story of the last century.@@@1 -This film is a good example of how through media manipulation you can sell a film that is no more than a very unfunny TV sitcom. In Puerto Rico the daily newspaper with the widest circulation has continuously written about the marvels of this film, almost silencing all others. Coincidentally the newspaper with the second largest circulation belongs to the same owners. The weekly CLARIDAD is the only newspaper on the island that has analyzed the film's form and content, and pointed out all its flaws, clichés, and bad writing.

Just because a film makes a portion of the audience laugh with easy and obvious jokes, and because one can recognize actors and scenery, does not make it an acceptable film.@@@0 -I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.

This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen.@@@1 -Charles Bronson continued his 80's slump with what could possibly be his worst movie of the decade, if not ever. In it he plays a detective who goes to great lengths to track down a pimp who has abducted an Asian girl and is currently selling her to the highest bidder. It's a shameful attempt at action and is quite possibly the most depressing movie ever made. A lot of people consider the Death Wish sequels to be Bronson's worst movies. The Death Wish sequels weren't great movies but were in most cases competently made and very watchable. Kinjite however is an utterly dull thriller which is punctuated by mean spirited racism and child molestation. It really is a rephrensible film and all of it is made worse by the fact that it tries to preach a "Law and Justice" mentality that is too overwrought to really say anything. Indeed the movie begins with underage sex being interrupted with Bronson then anally raping the pedophile with a dildo. The Chicago theater I watched this in just gasped at the awkwardness of this scene, only to gasp at the awkwardness of the pimp raping the girl in this film. It has no point other than to exploit and really the movie wasn't well written enough to rise above the exploitation level and deliver something that would work. Bronson seems more into things but clearly this is far too repugnant to save. I want to point out that I think Charles Bronson is the coolest actor ever but this effort is ultimately his worst. The action sequences are poor also.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)@@@0 -Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.

The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary.

If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.

This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared.@@@1 -Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.@@@0 -I love ghost stories in general, but I PARTICULARLY LOVE chilly, atmospheric and elegantly creepy British period-style ghost stories. This one qualifies on all counts. A naive young lawyer ("solicitor" in Britspeak) is sent to a small village near the seaside to settle an elderly, deceased woman's estate. It's the 1920s, a time when many middle-class Brits go to the seaside on vacation for "their health." Well, guess what, there's nothing "healthy" about the village of Crythin Gifford, the creepy site of the elderly woman's hulking, brooding Victorian estate, which is located on the fringes of a fog-swathed salt marsh. When the lawyer saves the life of a small girl (none of the locals will help the endangered tot -- you find out why later on in the film), he inadvertently incurs the wrath of a malevolent spirit, the woman in black. She is no filmy, gauzy wraith, but a solid black silhouette of malice and evil. The viewer only sees her a few times, but you feel her malevolent presence in every frame. As the camera creeps up on the lawyer while he's reading through legal papers, you expect to see the woman in black at any moment. When the lawyer goes out to the generator shed to turn on the electricity for the creepy old house, the camera snakes in on him and you think she'll pop up there, too. Waiting for the woman in black to show up is nail-bitingly suspenseful. We've seen many elements of this story before(the locked room that no one enters, the fog, the naive outsider who ignores the locals' warnings) but the director somehow manages to combine them all into a completely new-seeming and compelling ghost story. Watch it with a buddy so you can have someone warm to grab onto while waiting for the woman in black. . .@@@1 -The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's "Death Wish II" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. "D.W. II" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). "10 to Midnight" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like "The Evil that Men Do" and the remaining "Death Wish" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.

"Kinjite" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).

What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like "The Mechanic", "Death Wish", "From Noon til 3", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Red Sun", "The Great Escape", "The Magnificent Seven", "Rider on the Rain", etc., etc....@@@0 -This film is exactly what its title describes--an attempt to get you to buy into what the writers have to offer.

First, it's kinda fun to see the 1996-style Toronto I remember with all its silly haircuts, sunglasses, clothes, and attitude. It really hasn't changed any; just a nice, safe, cheap, provincial little urban backwater that makes a great meeting place for international film types! It's also amusing to see Kenny and Spenny head to L.A. and find out that it's Toronto all over again, only with a strange assortment of beach bums, musicians, fortune tellers, and yet more uppity film types.

I don't see Pitch as a film to be enjoyed; it's not entertainment unless the viewer enjoys watching someone's aspirations being trampled. I take Pitch as a warning that power and money is really held by studio execs and production houses. Would-be (and "successful") writers, musicians, and actors are still mere transients even when they reach the Big Time.

So, Kenny and Spenny are trying to sell you a warning. Buy it or don't, but the message is still there.@@@1 -What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.

Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.@@@0 -I really miss the production of good old fashion Spooky films. If Ismail Merchant and James Ivory had been given the task of producing such a film it may have been this one, save for the lack of an internationally known, top drawer cast. This is one of those films that you watch alone on a dark evening with a pizza and some popcorn, and you don't even bother doing the dishes until morning because you just want to hide under the covers. Bravo to Director Herbert Wise, Writers Susan Hill and Nigel Kneale, top Production design by Jon Bunker, Art Direction by John Ralph and an excellent cast for making me shudder and feel so isolated even though I'm living in one of the most populated cities in the world in the beginning of the 21st Century. I gave it a "9" out of "10" because with the production and budget constraints of television, they really pulled of a great show.@@@1 -Offering a killer combo of terrible writing, terrible acting and terrible direction, it's a tossup whether Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects is offensively bad or just hilariously bad. It's almost as if someone ran a competition to make the sleaziest, seediest Cannon film. As if a glance at a cast list including characters like 'Lesbian Pedophile,' 'Perverted Gentleman,' 'Porno Actress' weren't enough, it's your only chance to see Charles Bronson's cop throw a lowlife on a bed and grab a dildo - but don't worry, it's okay, as the offscreen screams make clear he's only torturing him for information. After all, even if he is a bit overprotective of his nice Catholic daughter, he's a nice Catholic cop who regularly brings local Catholic priest William O'Connell a packed lunch and who believes in poetic justice - or at least ensuring that the bad guys end up in the slammer with the horniest inmates maximum security can provide to give them a taste of their own medicine. But then that's what you get for telling him "Look, I think you're a little bit unstable." Still, when later offered a bribe, he may snarl "I'd like to shove this up your ass, but I don't want to get my hands dirty," he's clearly learned where to draw the line: instead, he just makes him eat a $25,000 watch and sets fire to his Cadillac. The anal obsession even follows through to the film's title: despite the poster featuring a naked Japanese girl on a porn film set, the film's only direct example of Kinjite/forbidden subjects, as Alex Hyde White's English teacher explains to a group of Japanese businessmen, is, er talking about your bowel movements in polite society.

Bronson isn't just too old for this, as the opening fight makes only too clear, he's too old for love interest Peggy Lipton, and she looks old enough to have grown-up kids. A better actor than he ever got the credit for when given the right material, here's he's given less a properly thought out character than a series of outrageous reactionary quirks. When he's not widening the circles of suspects he's accidentally dropping them to their death off the sides of buildings. He's definitely not a P.C. copper, with a special loathing for the Japanese - as if it wasn't bad enough that they're buying up American businesses, what's worse, they double-park on a public thoroughfare! No racial minority goes unassaulted, be they black pimp or Pakistani hotel clerk, no cop cliché unrecycled, be it a boss who bangs his fist on the table or a dead meat partner (Perry Lopez and his spectacularly bad hair dye that's so prominent it deserves screen billing all its own). The twin plot strands - Bronson's L.A. cop trying to take down Juan Hernandez's pimp who deals in underage girls and James Pax's porn-obsessed Japanese businessman – take forever to intertwine, and then in the most unlikely of ways: after copping a feel of Bronson's daughter on a bus ("Some Oriental guy touched my holy of holies!"), in the film's idea of poetic justice Pax finds his own daughter kidnapped by Hernandez. You half expect the writer to pop his head round the corner of the screen and say, "How d'ya like them apples?"

Somewhere underneath all the laziness is the germ of a good idea even if it is too muddily developed to ever be clear quite what that idea really is, but the execution is pure Rising Sun: the Archie Bunker Version, shot like out-takes from an R-rated 80s music video with an outrageous and rather lazy dockside shoot-'em-up-and-blow'em-up finale that sees a small army of machine-gunning sidekicks suddenly appear to up the gratuitous body count. The last of Bronson's mostly bad to in different collaborations with J. Lee Thompson – and sadly Thompson's last film as director - it's a poor signoff for two undervalued players who increasingly never seemed to be that discerning about what pictures they said yes to.@@@0 -Every once in a while in the wonderful world of horror,diamonds are crafted, and one becomes completely awestruck by its sheer brilliance. This is no less than a diamond!! This is a film brimful of eeriness,chilling anticipation, and dark atmosphere, and I think it's safe to say, one of my favourite horror films of all time! And of course it contains probably the single most, flat out scary sequence in the whole of history of horror! Every time I see the film, and it gets up to the point where you know the inevitably will happen, I try to remember exactly when I will be frightened out of my wits, but it never fails to happen; I never get it right, and I find myself as terrorized as the first time I saw it!! Now, it must be said, to scare a jaded horror fan like that, that is nothing short of pure perfection. Unlike the Americans, the Brits know their subtleties, they take pride in the art of acting, they do not need any special effect in order to convey atmosphere, they rely on the power of the potent story, and the creepiness(in this case)of suggestion and anticipation. Every single element is impeccable, from the set pieces, the acting, the story, to the menacing atmosphere. Pauline Moran surely could make the devil whimper, that's for sure!! As an end note, if you for some demented reason don't like this piece of insanity, then you honestly don't know what horror is all about, and frankly do not deserve to know it either. Thank you!@@@1 -Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.@@@0 -This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.

My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.

She was saying something like "Don't let her get me" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.

So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this!@@@1 -When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter.

That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.

A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.

Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.

At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.

Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better.@@@0 -The Woman in Black (1989) is a TV adaptation of Susan Hill's modern classic ghost story, published only a few years earlier than the film was made. Sadly, this film has not been released on DVD, and as far as I am aware it has been deleted on VHS. It's availability is in direct contrast to it's popularity amongst those in the know about horror films. The story revolves around events in a seaside community in the early 20th century where a young solicitor is sent by his firm to conclude the affairs of a recently deceased widow, who died on her isolated marshland estate. What he thought would be a routine and probably tedious task turns into a nightmare as he discovers that the old woman was haunted to her death, and that the ghosts of her past are not content to rest. The story is told in a subtle but concise way, never being self-indulgent, flashy or over-expositional. The obviously tight budget may have contributed to the no-nonsense approach, but it's just what the story needs, and why it works so well. It's what you don't see that scares. Having said that, there is one particularly terrifying scene that relies on the visual, and it works to perfection. I watched this film during the day, and it still gave me nightmares nearly a week later. If you love being terrified, do what you must to get hold of and watch a copy of The Woman In Black.@@@1 -The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.

In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.

The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.

I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.

I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully.@@@0 -"The Woman in Black" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch "The Woman in Black" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10.@@@1 -This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5@@@0 -"Insignificance" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-"Don't Look Now" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like "Bad Timing" and "Cold Heaven". As the "Actress", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like "Walkabout" or "Performance". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/*****@@@1 -Back when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.

I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.

I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.

I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it "good" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.

The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up.@@@0 -It is not known whether Marilyn Monroe ever met and spoke with Albert Einstein (and since the mysterious disappearance of her diary after her equally mysterious death, we may never know), but in their lifetime the opportunity was there.

Scripted by Terry Johnson from his own play, Nicolas Roeg's Insignificance imagines an encounter in a New York hotel room one night in 1953 between the two icons plus Joe DiMaggio (Busey), and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Curtis) - but only on one level. On another level, it elevates - or reduces - these 'personalities' (and what a lousy phrase that is) to mere avatars (the characters are deliberately unnamed), at once greater and lesser in status.

The title Insignificance is both apposite and deeply ironic; here, DiMaggio's net worth has been reduced to little more than a picture on a bubblegum card. Monroe too is reduced to her constituent parts of dress, hair, lipstick, wiggle and voice. By uncovering their insecurities and reversing their roles, the film brings into sharp focus received notions of celebrity, exploding the cult of personality.

Furthering the theme, there will be another explosion at the film's climax: Hiroshima in a hotel suite, in which 'The Actress' is burned to a cinder in seconds; a literal deconstruction of fame. Goodbye, Norma Jean. History informs the script, which in turn, shakes history upside down. As Roeg mused after watching Johnson's play for the first time, "These characters were mythic, not invented by any single person, not the public or the press, probably not even by the characters themselves." As played by Theresa Russell, Marilyn (a closet intellectual in real life), lectures a childlike Einstein ('The Professor', played by Emil) on the theory of relativity using balloons and a flashlight, while getting The Professor to show off his legs, in conscious parody of her own role in The Seven-Year Itch, the movie The Actress is seen to be working on in the film's opening.

History records that Monroe's then-husband, fading baseball star DiMaggio (played by Busey as a tenderly psychotic simpleton), was unhappy about her iconic dress-splaying scene in the film, precipitating their break-up. Right on cue, we discover the jealous 'Ballplayer' in a bar, bemoaning the fact that if, "I want to see her underwear, I just walk down to the corner like all the other guys".

In contrast to The Professor, The Ballplayer believes the universe is round - a contention shared by Native Americans. But the Big Chief (Sampson, of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest fame) who operates the Roosevelt Hotel's elevator has been all but disenfranchised from his own culture: "I no longer Cherokee - I watch TV." Meanwhile, 'The Senator' is investigating The Professor, who is on the eve of delivering a pacifist speech to the United Nations, but whom The Senator suspects is a Red. In fact, as he divulges to Monroe, Einstein is wracked with guilt over Hiroshima, and what the white heat future holds. Yet in a seemingly godless universe, all such worries and aspirations are rendered insignificant in the light of a higher (atomic) power.

Roeg really is the perfect director to bring Johnson's stage play to the screen. Throughout, tortured childhood flashbacks and pessimistic flash-forwards (ka-boom!) draw unexpected connections between time, place and circumstance, with the repeated visual motif of a wristwatch employed to mark time's passing - but perhaps also to suggest all time is one time; each moment co-existing. As evinced by his back catalogue, it's something of a hobbyhorse for a director enchanted with the notion of synchronicity - see Don't Look Now in particular. Here, 1920 bleeds into 1945 and drip-feeds into the 1980s, a period in which another 'Actor' has taken on his greatest role as the President of the United States.

If all this sounds rather heavy going (quantum physics is surely involved), the execution is anything but, owing to Johnson's witty, zippy screenplay, Roeg's playful direction, opening out an essentially stagey set-up - and the cast themselves, who are on stellar form. Tony Curtis especially leaves denture marks in the wood panelling as the paranoid, impotent Senator, who is seen attempting congress with a Monroe impersonator (a real one, as opposed to Russell's), before being let down by his dwindling member.

Of course, Curtis once co-starred with the real Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot, and whose embrace he memorably described as like "kissing Hitler". As Roeg commented, "Everything suddenly seemed connected... when the film began to take shape even the actors themselves seemed part of this endless linking." It all goes into the pot, to be boiled down and served up in new and fascinating ways.@@@1 -OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.@@@0 -New York, 1953. One hot night, four famous iconic figures will come together. The professor (Albert Einstein) has come to NY to give a speech, which he has, the senator (Joesph MacCarthy) on his back. Later that night his gets a surprise visitor; a famous actress (Marilyn Monroe). Who actually wants to discuss the theories of Relativity. Soon her ball-playing husband (Joe DiMaggio) turns up at the hotel room, begging to work things out for their crumbling relationship. Flashbacks of childhood, important events, perceived consequences of their actions creep in to show how these individuals cope with despair and a hidden fear waiting to break out.

Now that's one-of-a-kind! Adapted off a stage-play by Terry Johnson (who would also script the screenplay for the film), "Insignificance" is an odd, quirky, seductive and downright curious fictional pop-culture gimmick in the hands of director Nicolas Roeg. This inspired and cerebral experimental effort might be rooted in its stage-play origins, because it does feel theatrical and most of the action occurs in a hotel backdrop and one main suite. The cramp look only enhanced the moody and smoky atmosphere of New York to great effect. However these limitations can't contain the fruitful and daring ideas that Roeg manages to randomly storm up visually and through the meaningful material. The way he reflects on the characters' (who are suggestively famous figures, without the need of naming of them) philosophical journeys and interpretations of their notions is stimulating in a spiritual sense, with the memories gelling into the present and visions showing their fears of realisations, which depending on what you're seeing is either beautiful, or hauntingly implemented. There's plenty of food for thought and hints within the verbosely innovative (if sometimes awkward) script, with the main focus concerning the present situation, but the flashbacks gives us the personal make-up (sex, power, enlightenment and glory) of what makes them who they are and how much of a burden it can be in there already demanding lives. Sure the story might not lead to anything by the end, and it can feel disjointed, but the dreamy vibe and intelligent arrangement irons out those folds and makes sure it never turns giddy. Peter Hannan's sensually fluid photography and Stanley Myers' titillatingly oozing blues soundtrack fit in snugly with Roeg's stylistically subdue and established style of directing. He makes it look like he's working with something big and large-scale, but otherwise that's not the case and a small little universe is created. The vintage costumes and locations of the period all come off fittingly enough. What made the film for me had to be the impressive acting it boasted from the main four. Theresa Russell's perky, drop dead gorgeous appeal of the sexy pin-up actress is a growing portrayal that definitely held the film together along with an genuinely excellent and endearing performance by Michael Emil as the professor. Tony Curtis marvellously plays it up as witch-hunting senator and Gary Busey is suitably good in the stoically gravel manner as the ballplayer. Showing up in minor, but amusing support roles happen to be Will Sampson and Patrick Kilpatrick.

A memorably striking, fresh and tour de force meditation piece of metaphysics linked together by four different extremes. Some might find it pretentiously estrange and too talky, but this one had me wrapped up in its own little unique world to worry too much about its shortcomings.@@@1 -You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.

There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending.

That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.

-Celluloid Rehab@@@0 -If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.

This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.

@@@1 -A family of terrible people must remain in a house for a week or else they will lose their inheritance which will go to the servants who will only get their inheritance if they agree to stay on and keep the house in order. People die (and so will you if you try to sit through this) If you've ever had any desire to see bad actors- many with ill fitting dentures-act or attempt to act in a bad horror movie this is your chance. This is just awful. Its so bad I thought Al Adamson, one of the worst directors ever, directed it, but I was wrong.

Its so bad I don't want to say anything more about it, not because it isn't polite but because once I start I may not be able to stop.

avoid@@@0 -Yes, it's flawed - especially if you're into Hollywood films that demand a lot of effects, a purely entertaining or fantasy story or plot, and you can't actually think for yourself.

Roeg's films are for the intelligent film-goer, and Insignificance is a perfect example.

The characterizations are brilliant, the story is excellent, but, like all Nic Roeg's films - it has you thinking on every level about aspects of reality that would never have dawned on you before. His films always make you think, and personally, I like that in a film.

So don't expect to come away from watching this film and feeling all happy-happy, because it's likely you'll be disappointed.

But I think it's excellent.@@@1 -A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".@@@0 -This movie is great, the music "with the exception of the very first song in the movie" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick!@@@1 -This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses@@@0 -I have always been a great admirer of Nicolas Roeg and "Walkabout" is one of my favorite films. This is a film version of Roegs stage play and while most of the film takes place in a hotel room it still has some of Roegs cinematic flare. Very unique story is about a famous actress (Theresa Russell) who after a hard nights work on a film in 1954 goes to a hotel to visit a famous professor (Michael Emil) and together in his hotel room they talk. After awhile she wants to go to bed with him but as they start to get undressed her husband is banging on the door. Her husband is a famous ex-baseball player (Gary Busey) and he wants to know what is going on. The three of them in the hotel room talk about what is going on and what the future holds for them. Meanwhile, a famous senator (Tony Curtis) is threatening to take away the professors papers if he doesn't testify at a hearing. Theresa Russell is just excellent and while she's not trying exactly to impersonate Marilyn Monroe she does a wonderful job of exuding the phobia's and nuances that Monroe is very well known for. One thing the film does is show her as not only a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown but show her as a physical wreck as well. She talks of being unable to have children and at one point in the film she suffers a miscarriage. You can make an excellent case that this is Russell's best performance and I probably wouldn't argue. The film does an interesting thing in showing many flashbacks as the characters continue to talk about one thing and in the flashback we see one of many reasons for their actions. Busey also gives a good solid performance and it reminds me of what a strong persona he gives off on screen. Emil as the professor is a character that has many more things on his mind then we originally thought. The last scene in this film is a demonstration of his darker side! One of the highlights of the film for me is the little conversation he has with the elevator man (Will Sampson of "Cuckoo's Nest") and they discuss what Cherokee Indians think about at all times. But of course the famous scene in this film is where Russell demonstrates to Emil how she does understand the theory of relativity and uses toys to show this. The professor is delighted by her demonstration and so are we! Russell and Roeg are married in real life and they do admirable work when they are in collaboration and this is probably their best film together. Good performances and a very interesting job of directing make this a challenging and visually thought provoking film.@@@1 -I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.

So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.@@@0 -Nicolas Roeg's projects are variable to say the least, but are never less than interesting. "Insignificance" is obviously, first and foremost, an adapted stageplay: it's wordy and pretty-much 'room-bound'. BUT, it pays to view this film more than once: the underlying themes are not overtly presented and, what's more, it takes a while to adjust to the juxtaposition and role-reversals of the four protagonists: Einstein, McCarthy, Munroe, and DiMaggio.

Einstein is wracked by guilt over Hiroshima yet fancies the simplicity of a sexual liaison with Munro; Munro is sick of being seen as a bimbo and craves intellectual credence; Senator McCarthy is at the height of his witch-hunting powers but is an impotent sleazebag; DiMaggio is insecure about his celebrity, self-obsessed, and prone to violence. Each of them contains the seeds of their own destruction. Each character has a troubled, abused/abusive past and a questionable future. Gradually, we see that obsession itself is the central theme. America's obsession with its postwar cultural icons and mores; the obsessions of the protagonists for something none can have: peace-of-mind and/or happiness.

Compared with the theory of relativity, a proposed unified-field theory and, indeed, the cosmos itself, all the aspirations and interactions of Roeg's protagonists seem insignificant. Yet these aspects of the physical universe (it's all quantum, trust me!) affect us when they are applied to the development of the means to destroy us. Monroe's mention of the principle behind the neutron-bomb (without naming it as such) is not an anachronism per se, but can only be understood by a contemporary audience. Indeed, ALL the references within the script are only accessible to a knowledgeable viewer: one au fait with '50s occurrences/personality cults and how they affect us in the 21st century.

This film and its screenplay are either very, very clever, or extremely opaque and pretentious. Ultimately, however, probably insignificant.

live long and prosper :)

@@@1 -Terrible...just terrible. Probably the worst film I have ever seen. And I did see some pretty bad pictures, throughout the years. The sound sucks so does the quality of the picture, the direction, the acting...etc, etc. The only good shoots( meaning funny, because they're so bad ) are the special effects. Overall there are about 5 minutes worth of laughs. The rest of the flick gives you brain damage.@@@0 -What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?

This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it.

Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times.

Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity.

But there's more.

Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.

Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.@@@1 -Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...

Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.

Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?

Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.

Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there.@@@0 -A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot.@@@1 -***SPOILERS*** With a gathering of family members and servants of the late Christopher Dean, John Carradine, to hear his last will and testament they get somewhat of a surprise in that the Dean fortune, some 140 million dollars. The money is to be divided between them but only after they successfully spend a week at the Dean mansion. There seemed to have been a mix-up in the story when we later find out that it's really an overnight sleepover, not a weeks vacation, at the mansion for the guests to qualify for Dean's money since almost everyone ends up dead by sunrise.

The first victim of the Dean Curse have nothing at all to do with getting and money from the departed Christopher Dean estate the local sheriff Dan Garcia, Rodolfo Acosta. Acosta has his head chopped off refrigerated and then served on a platter to a shocked group of guests. Later that evening cute little Chin Greg and Laura's,Jeff Morrow & Marry Anders,little pet pooch is found dead outside floating in the pond.

The movie has all the people staying at the Dean Mansion being picked off one by one until it's revealed who the killer really is. We then have what seems to be a double-twist in the story where the original killer is suddenly killed together with two of the last remaining guest. The real killer ends up not only getting all the loot, 140 million dollars, but then ends up not having to split it with his accomplice by doing him, or her, in by giving him a poisonous cookie that kills him on the spot.

Nonsensical who done it, and haunted house, movie with a cast of such immoral and unlikable characters that even a mother, much less the audience, would have trouble liking. There's everything you can possibly think of in the move involving the selective guests that includes incest S&M sadism and of course double-dealing and back-stabbing not even counting murder. You just couldn't care less who of the guests survives to collect the Dean fortune at the end of the movie hoping against all hope then none of them do.

Even the big surprise at the end isn't really that much of a surprise since the killer's identity is divulged with the film-maker having forgotten to keep his face in the shadows so you actual see who he is even before he reveals himself! We then have a plot-twist that eliminates the killer together with a number of remaining guest just to make the movie a little more confusing then it already is. The final plot-twist, that you can see coming from as far as ten miles away, was just to show how smart the very obvious killer was which fooled almost nobody watching the movie.@@@0 -Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.

It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.

The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.

Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.

Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.

George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.

It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable.@@@1 -Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next....

I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.

Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!

Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!

Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.@@@0 -Nina Foch insists that "My Name is Julia Ross" in this 1945 film noir also starring Dame May Witty and George Macready. It's short, and because it is, the film suffers. It could have stood to have been a good fifteen minutes to a half hour longer.

When I was growing up, Foch was a fixture on television, playing a neurotic woman, the wife with the cheating husband, the nervous wreck. She became one of the great acting teachers in Los Angeles. Here, she's a pretty young ingenue playing the title role. Julia answers an ad for a secretary and is hired immediately by Mrs. Hughes and her son Ralph. Little does she know - though we learn immediately - that the employment agent is a front, set up to get just the right woman for this assignment, a woman with no family and no boyfriend.

It's a live-in situation; once Julia gets to the house, she's drugged, and when she wakes up, she's told she's Mrs. Hughes and not allowed to leave.

The acting is very good. Low budget but still entertaining - some things, particularly at the end, happen way too quickly, which is why I said the movie is too short. Nevertheless, I recommend it.@@@1 -This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep.@@@0 -This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.

When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.

The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?@@@1 -You all know the story of "Hamlet". I do.

Well, the "To Be Or Not To Be" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find "Hamlet" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: "Julius Caesar" and "Romeo & Juliet" are ten times better, with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Othello" not too far behind. "Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.

I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.

Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for "Hamlet", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).

While "Blood Waters of Dr. Z" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from "Future War": "Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies"), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.

The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like "Prince of Space") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.

The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film.

Four stars for "Hamlet"; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.

PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K!@@@0 -Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense.@@@1 -Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!@@@0 -MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS is a mesmerizing 1945 B thriller from Joseph H. Lewis, arguably one of the very finest directors of Hollywood noir films. This 65 minute Gothic oddity from Columbia Pictures came after Lewis' lengthy apprenticeship as the helmer of a string of poverty row westerns, East Side Kids comedies, horror melodramas (including the incredibly bizarre Bela Lugosi shocker THE INVISIBLE GHOST) and standard studio B product (SECRETS OF A CO-ED, BOMBS OVER BURMA, THE FALCON IN SAN FRANCISCO, etc)---all of which set the stage rather nicely for what was to come from the enormously talented and inventive Mr. Lewis. MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (as well as SO DARK THE NIGHT from the following year) introduced a director who had mastered the rare and delicate art telling a dark and probing tale swiftly and efficiently on the most modest of budgets. Later Lewis productions like GUN CRAZY (1949) and THE BIG COMBO (1955), despite the expanded scope of their narrative structure, continued to rely upon deft, lucid camera work and effective low-key lighting. And very modest resources.

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS probably owes more to the tradition of British mysteries (it's set in a studio-bound England) than it does to conventional film noir attitudes and trappings. A young woman (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position in the home of an elderly woman (Dame Mae Witty). Two days after her arrival she awakens from a deep sleep in a completely strange house and, mysteriously enough, with a brand new identity---that of the old woman's daughter-in-law. Told that she's been the victim of a nervous breakdown, she struggles to grasp the utter and seemingly hopeless nature of her predicament. But before long she begins to piece together the strange and troubling truth behind this dark mystery, that her "husband" (the always menacing George Macready) most probably murdered his real wife and that she's been duped into participating in a harrowing and sinister scheme. Much of what distinguishes this otherwise modest tale are the indelible touches that Lewis brings to the production, marking it as the first of his truly serious endeavors as a film director.@@@1 -I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.

The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.

It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10@@@0 -For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.

Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.

Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios.@@@1 -Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.

To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place.@@@0 -Still love it 17 or so years after the first time I saw it, in fact I discovered that I had lost my copy of this and was very upset. Despite it's non-association with the original (which as a kid I never noticed and as an adult I don't care about), this is what cartoons *should* be like. Just dark enough to be interesting and light enough to be enjoyed by everyone. I'm more than glad that my parents raised me on this kind of thing rather than the cartoons we see today that teach our kids nothing. The music is great, and gets stuck in your head forever...I have downloaded the entire soundtrack at one point or another.@@@1 -Kim Basinger stars as Della, a desperate housewife with a somewhat abusive husband, who gets into trouble while she's out at the local mall doing some last minute Christmas shopping. After placing a hastily scrawled hateful note on a piece of paper and sticking said paper in the windshield of a car that took up two parking spaces, she finds out the owners of the car are the Rainbow Coilition of villains comprising of a white guy, a Mexican, a Chinese guy & a black. They confront her about the note, cap a helpless security guard, and the chase is on. During the course of the film Della will go for hunted to hunter as she unleashes her inner Bronson.

I found this to be a somewhat tense little thriller. The acting was good enough (except for a few scenes, the "Why God why" bit was cringe worthy in it's badness though) It comes undone a bit due to the sheer fact that the villains Della chases from/after are mind-numbingly stupid. If they hadn't had the intellect of any given "Home Alone" baddie, perhaps their eventual defeat would be something to savor instead of the meh reaction it evokes. The unbelievability factor I'm willing to overlook as both the director & one of the producers had part in bringing "Shoot em up" to the screen (a film which while throwing credibility out the window was immensely fun). This film while never attaining the heights of that film, was good in it's own rights.

My Grade: C-

Anchor Bay DVD Extras: Commentary with Writer/director Susan Montford and producer Don Murphy; a 25 and a half minute 'Making-of'; a trailer & two TV spots for this film; and trailer for Lower Learning@@@0 -Julia Ross (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position as a secretary with the rich Hughes family to get over her boyfriend leaving her. Almost immediately she is drugged and shipped off to the family's estate in Cornwall. When she awakens they keep telling her she's Marion Hughes, has been mentally ill and keep her locked up...but why? You'll probably guess why but won't mind because this one is fun.

Along with "The Narrow Margin" and "Face Behind the Mask" this is one of the best B pictures ever made. (B pictures were low budget pictures made quickly with low budgets and no major stars). It's just as long as it needs to be (only 65 minutes), is well-directed, fast paced and exciting. It only stumbles at the end which I found a bit too implausible to buy.

Foch (a good actress) is just OK in the lead but Dame May Witty is great and George Macready is excellent (and frightening) as the villains. Well worth catching. A perfect example of how you can make a great movie on a small budget.@@@1 -I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10.@@@0 -Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.

"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.

Well done.

Grade: B+@@@1 -note to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is "I don't think so, *breeder*".

my favorite riff is "Why were you looking at his 'like'?", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and "Right well did not!" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.

I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'.@@@0 -Having watched this film strictly on the strength of reviewers' ratings I was most pleasantly surprised. Although clearly low-budget, it bears the signs of clever ingenuity. For example, when Julia wakes in the strange house and looks out the window I found myself thinking that her sense of isolation would be enhanced with an exterior shot focused on her face and then moving backwards to include the house and its isolated location. And lo and behold! the next scene was exactly that last shot of the house standing lonely on the cliff at the water's edge. There are other examples of how a clever director can elevate his film to the level of a very enjoyable thriller. Savvy viewers will surely spot them but should rest assured they will not be disappointed.

As to the performances, George Macready is his usual creepy self, barely maintaining his composure while suggesting a capacity for unadulterated violence. Nina Foch was surprisingly good as the no-nonsense working girl who's not about to submit without a fight. But Dame May Witty, oh boy, she even had me doubting my own eyes and believing she could get away with her evil schemes.

This a real diamond in the rough and not to be missed.@@@1 -Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.

But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.@@@0 -Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****@@@1 -Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.

Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better.@@@0 -A toothsome little potboiler whose 65-minute length doesn't seem a second too short, My Name is Julia Ross harks back to an English tradition of things not being what they seem -- Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes is one example. Out-of-work Julia Ross (Nina Foch) finds a dream job at a new employment agency in London, whose sinister representative seems very anxious to ascertain if she has living relatives or a boyfriend. After reporting to duty, she wakes up (Having Been Drugged) in a vast Manderley-like pile on the Cornish coast, supposedly as the barmy-in-the-crumpet wife of George Macready, who displays an alarming interest in knives and ice picks. His doting, enabling mum is the irresistible Dame May Whitty (this time a model of bustling efficiency on the other side of good-vs-evil than she occupied in The Lady Vanishes). The nightmare vision of this tale unfolds claustrophobically; we know what's going on but are powerless to tell poor Julia. This movie, curiously, is regularly accorded a place of honor as one of the earliest (and very few British) films noirs. I think it's closer to the Gothic old-dark-house tradition than the American one of wet cobblestones and urban corruption; it does, however, evince a more modern, psychoanalytic cast of mind. Whatever you call it, it remains a sharply satisfying thriller.@@@1 -Take:

1. a famous play

2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using

3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.

4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: "Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark"

I listened to the radio play of "Hamlet" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on "Hamlet", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.@@@0 -Shirley MacLaine in another tailor-made role. As the aunt to a single mom in a 1962 working-class Chicago neighborhood, the veteran character actress gets another work-out as a gutsy woman who won't let any set-backs defeat her spirit of success. The children, a pre-teen boy and girl, are drawn to their spirited Aunt Zoe, although the many magic tricks and practical jokes learned from her, and applied at all the wrong opportunities eventually get them expelled from school.

The plot is cleverly enveloped in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with all of the social implications. Men building bomb shelters, people watching news programs on what seemed to be the only TV set, at a diner, and a general mist of uneasiness and fear in the air. When a "harmless" miracle is blown out of proportions, the climactic conclusion nonetheless makes the viewer feel good. Yes, Virginia, the sun will come up tomorrow! Clearly a small-budget production, this is still a sweet little film, filled with the magic that Sunday Matinees were made of. With a few choice "Oldies" thrown into an effective Sound Track, the whole family is sure to enjoy this one.****@@@1 -There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.

As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.@@@0 -Wonderful family drama/comedy starring MacClaine and Garr that entertains and warms the heart every time I see it. Strongly recommended for all ages from 9 year olds to grannies. Lovely period piece capturing 1962. The story encompasses the struggling Garr, her two children and Aunt Zena (MacClaine) trying to make ends meet without a man as head of the household. The "family" heads west to take the inheritance of a long forgotten relative that has left Garr a run down, ramshackle road side cafe right out of the late 1940's. The tenacious Garr, as the sweet but determined mom, gets the whole family into the restoration and opening of the cafe. But wait......Aunt Zena is an old circus performer with card tricks, magic powders and a jesters sense of humor......she loves to get the kids and her into silly and sometimes dangerous games.....What happens next is a delightful combination of "Miracle at Lords" thrown together with the Cuban missile crises (with authentic TV news from the real event) and a "ghost" prank that gets totally out of hand. This film entertains, philosophizes, questions religiosity and gives an unnerving glimpse of the frightening scare of October 1962's Cuban missile crises. In the end one is left with the wonder of faith, family and rediscovered love. Oh, and the music from the era of the early 60's is just great!

Recommend STRONGLY as a FEEL GOOD FILM 10 out 10@@@1 -...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though.@@@0 -I took a chance on "Hardcastle and McCormick" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection.@@@1 -I've seen all kinds of "Hamlet"s.

Kenneth Branagh's was most ambitious, Mel Gibson's was quick and to the point, Laurence Olivier's was the best - hands down. But now we come to Maximilian Schell's take on the Bard.

For one, this is a dubbed version of a German TV production of William Shakespeare's venerable chestnut. But if there's a slower, more plodding, more lethargic and worse-staged version out there somewhere, it must have been acted at grade school-level.

Having seen it on MST3K helps, with Mike and the robots taking jolly good jabs at the old boy, puncturing the profundity of black and white TV, Shakespeare and the wisdom (?) of Germans acting out an English play and making it look like an Ingmar Bergman reject.

Of course, the best parts are the MST riffs. Best lines? "I'm gonna unleash the Great Dane", "I don't think so, 'breather'", "Meet the Beatles", "Hey, Dad, will you help me with my science project" and, my personal favorite, during a party - "Garrison Keillor's leaving Germany (YAAAY!!)".

But then there's Schell, playing Shakespeare's greatest character much like a department store mannequin would, only not as expressive. No doubt he's a great actor, but here he comes off about as well as Paul Newman in "The Silver Chalice". Ever see that one? You GOTTA watch these two on a double-bill!

In the end, this is one instance where it's true that you're much better off to just read the book. At least the book isn't dubbed by Ricardo Montalban.

One star only for this "Hamlet"; ten stars, naturally, for the MST3K version.

Good-night, not-so-sweet prince.@@@0 -Hardcastle and McCormick is an excellent TV show.

Yes, it is predictable much like The Dukes of Hazzard, Hunter, The A-Team, etc etc etc.

This show is just good clean television. The relationship between Hardcastle and McCormick is quite amusing. They often take jabs at each other several times an episode, which adds a great deal of humor to the show. It contains several car chases in almost every episode, but, who doesn't enjoy a good car chase? Especially with the Coyote!

I only wish they made clean television like this today I highly recommend this!@@@1 -I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.@@@0 -

Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.

I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.

And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past.@@@1 -I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.

In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."

Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10.@@@0 -Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me.

I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.

I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.

You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.

@@@1 -OK, if you're a woman who's got aggression issues, you might like this movie. Hate your significant other? This movie is for you. For the guys, it will be a bag of laughs.

It's sad when former award winning actresses have to do cut rate movies.

The only really good part is the last 10 seconds. Even that was a load of cheese.

My wife is picking the worst movies lately. This is what you get (I) for letting my wife pick movies based on reading reviews on movie rental sites.@@@0 -I saw this film when I was 10 or 11 years old, alone in my parent's basement on a Saturday night. It was being shown on "Chiller Theatre," a regular fright feature that I watched religiously as a young 'un. Now, I have seen many old horror films thanks to Chiller Theatre, but none ever stuck with me like "Danse Macabre," a.k.a. "Castle of Blood." I am 51 now, and only last year was I fortunate enough to locate a relatively recent, quality DVD edition of this wonderfully shudder-inducing supernatural classic, having thought I'd never manage to see it again. I have already watched it four more times, and cannot seem to get tired of it.

They just don't make spook films like this one anymore. Haunted catacombs and mist-enshrouded graveyards just don't work as well in color as they did in black and white back in the day. Anyway, this one has Edgar Allen Poe and Barbara Steele, deliciously shadowy, cobweb-wrap'ed haunted castle sets, restless spirits re-enacting their deaths... and a wickedly ironic ending.

IMO, this one's right up there with Robert Wise's "The Haunting," "The Innocents" (with Deborah Kerr), and the more recent "The Others."@@@1 -Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.

This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.

This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.@@@0 -`Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.

While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.

Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.

It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'.@@@1 -Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.@@@0 -I first remember seeing this one back in the 70s when it was shown on late night television. Scared the hell out of me. But then, I was a teenager back in those days, not as jaded about films as I am now.

CASTLE OF BLOOD (aka: DANSE MACABRE) is a fine example of the 60s Italian horror genre, along with Mario Bava's BLACK SUNDAY(1960), CURSE OF THE LIVING DEAD (aka: KILL BABY KILL) (1966) and Mario Caiano's NIGHTMARE CASTLE (1965). If you want spooky atmosphere along with great writing, then check these out as well. I also rate these along with those early Poe films that Roger Corman was doing during the same period.

I saw the new Synapse DVD that was taken from a French print and it's a great improvement over that old pan-and-scan print that was making the rounds on television over the years. It adds a couple of minutes of dialog (in French) that don't really add much to the movie as whole, but it's nice to see it complete, without cuts. Unfortunately the DVD doesn't really offer any extras beyond stills from the film.

One flub I noticed was in the opening scene, seeing the smoke-effects man next to the camera being reflected on the glass of the inn's front door. I guess the editors didn't catch it at the time, or maybe they didn't care, but it is something I didn't notice the first time. That's the wonders of DVD. You get to see all the flubs, mistakes and details that weren't apparent the first time around. But no matter.

But no matter, it still gets a 7 on the imdb meter

@@@1 -I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.

So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).@@@0 -Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers!

Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem!@@@1 -Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.

Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)

Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.

Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson.

@@@0 -Castle of Blood is a good example of the quality work in the horror genre being turned out in Italy in the 60s. The film has all of the right elements - old dark house, atmosphere, a decent story, and Barbara Steele. Steele makes most any film worth seeing.

The story concerns a haunted castle. People have visited, but none have returned. Our hero makes a wager that he can spend the night in the castle and return to collect his winnings. But, the night he visits is a special night. It's the night each year when the dead return to relive their deaths.

The only flaw I see in the movie is the running time. It almost feels padded. There is a large portion of the first act where literally nothing happens. Our hero stumbles around in the dark finding nothing of interest. But once he does find something, the movie picks up and become quite enjoyable.

Castle of Blood is a definite must for Steele fans and fans of Italian Gothic horror in general.@@@1 -This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour.@@@0 -When American author Edgar Allan Poe visits London, he is approached by British journalist Alan Foster, who becomes the target of a peculiar wager. Not believing Poe's assertion that all of his macabre stories have been based on actual experience, Foster accepts a bet from Poe and his friend Sir Thomas Blackwood that he cannot spend an entire night in the Blackwood's haunted castle. Once installed in the abandoned castle, Foster discovers that he is not alone, as he is approached by various beautiful women and handsome men, and a doctor of metaphysics - who explains that they are all lost souls damned to replay the stories of their demises on the anniversary of their deaths! The first time I watched this glorious bit of classic horror, I was mesmerized the entire time. I found the movie genuinely creepy and at the same time sorrowful. Babs Steele is undeniably beautiful. The music score makes the atmosphere twice as terror inducing. The topless scene threw me for a loop, as I was not expecting it. It looks as Synapse did a great job with picture enhancement, because this movie looks damn fine for its age, and it's the Uncut International version, to boot. This is the movie responsible for me starting a Babs Steele and Klaus Kinski collection.@@@1 -Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?

'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.

The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.

Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.

Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.

A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.

Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.

Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.

He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.

In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.

The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.

At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.

Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love.

Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.

Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.

I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.

The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.

At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?

Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.

If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?@@@0 -I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy@@@1 -A movie has rarely left me as cold as this one. There is not a bit of tension, not a second of fear, not a moment we jump, even a little bit. The girl is cute, yeah. That's it. Was that worth a movie ? I knew it wasn't supposed to be a great movie, but I was at least expecting one.@@@0 -This complicated story begins fairly simply, with an English journalist accepting a wager from Edgar Allen Poe and his friend Lord Blackwood that he cannot spend a night in the haunted Blackwood castle. Once there, the writer wanders around the dusty rooms and corridors, until music and a glimpse of a waltzing couple lead him into an empty room. He sits at the harpsichord and starts to play the tune he has heard, and is surprised to be tapped on the shoulder by the stunningly beautiful Elizabeth Blackwood. She informs him with an ambiguous charming/eerie manner that she has prepared his room upstairs and that someone is always expected on this night...the Night of the Dead. Thus begins a startling series of supernatural events that bewilder the journalist all the rest of the night. SPOILER AHEAD: it probably won't surprise too many viewers to learn that the lovely Elizabeth is actually a ghost. This doesn't prevent her from falling in love with the journalist, but it does make things more complicated for them than for the average couple. This is a fun movie, with absolutely everything: ghosts, the spooky castle, repeated visions of past events, sex and violence ( though both have been toned down in the version most Americans have seen over the years.) The alluring, captivating Barbara Steele is the main reason to see it. She has a strange charisma unlike anyone else you've ever seen in the movies. Recommended!@@@1 -I wasn't really hoping for much when I went to see this. After Mst3king the heck out of JasonX with some friends though, I was hoping for a similar experience here.

Unfortunately the movie took itself way too seriously. Do I care about Jason's problems? I'm sorry no. There are a legion Ft13th movies that cover that anyway. At at then end of the day, he's an undead serial killer, I'm just not going to get that sympathetic.

Freddy was by far the most interesting aspect of the movie with the hallucinations and what not, but unfortunately they were few and far between and by the end of the movie, it had degenerated into a bad episode of celebrity deathmatch...only not funny.

@@@0 -I originally saw this movie as a boy at the old Rialto Theatre as part of a Saturday afternoon matinée triple bill which also featured Vincent Price's "Last Man on Earth" and Mario Bava's "Nightmare Castle." I had nightmares about blood lusting ghosts for a week afterwards! Though I didn't know it then, all three movies would prove to be classics of the genre. No wonder I was so scared! Though all three films frightened me, it was Castle of Blood that had the most profound impact.

It was the first on the bill. I didn't even get to see it from the beginning as we were late getting to the cinema and missed the first 20 minutes of the movie. That's lot to miss since the edited print only ran about 79 minutes (the unedited runs 87minutes). But despite this, the dark creepy atmosphere (complete with ruined castles, fog enshrouded cemeteries, shadows and cobwebs), Gothic set design, strong acting, and suspense (especially the last 20 minutes) scared the bejeepers out of me and made a lasting impression It took me years to finally get a copy of the film for my collection. Since it was a French - Italian import, it wasn't a movie that showed up on the late show in Winnipeg. I couldn't quite remember the title (remember I didn't get to seen the beginning of the film and was scared witless), and to make matters worse, the film had been released under literally a dozen different movie titles (aka Danze Macabre, Coffin of Terror, Castle of Terror, Long Night of Terror, etc...) and the USA/UK working title "Castle of Blood" was very generic, similar to dozens of other "b" horror and suspense films, making it illusive. But thanks to the internet and perseverance, I found it at last! What a treat to finally watch the film in its entirety after so many years! It may not have had quite the sheer emotional impact that it did when I was a boy, but as haunted house movies go, it's stands up well and compares favourably to similar iconic films of the period such as "The Haunting," "The Innocents" or "Black Sunday," The film is a fine early effort of Italian director Antonio Margheriti. It stars 60's scream queen icon Barbara Steele and features a well written screenplay by Sergio Corbucci about a sceptical writer (Georges Riviere) who, on a bet, spends the night in haunted house and unsuspectingly becomes part of an annual ongoing ghostly story. The hypnotic Steele is well cast as the ghostly love interest - as is Arturo Dominici as Dr. Carmus, and Margarete Robsahm as Julia.

Many of the tricks Margheriti employs to create the film's eerie atmosphere (cobwebs, creaking doors, fog, etc) are bound to seem cliché to a modern audience, but they work far more effectively in black and white than they ever could in modern day colour. Rather than using body counts and special effects, the film creates scares the old fashion way, relying on a good story, stylish direction, fine set production, interesting camera work, and strong acting performances. Margheriti does a marvellous job taking these elements and building the film's suspense as the horrifying paranormal secret of the house gradually reveals itself to the unwitting writer.

The film is not without faults. The pace drags at the beginning of the film (ironically, the 20 minutes I originally missed). This is probably worsened by Synapse films effort to restore the film to its original length. Though fans will likely appreciate the chance to see the film restored - in terms of the intro - it may have been more of hindrance than a help. The English voice dubs are merely passable and, in the restored scenes, the language shifts from English to French (English subtitles provided) which is sure to be annoying to some viewers.

However, Synapse Films deserves kudos for the quality of the print. Clearly some effort was put into its restoration and deservedly so.

I enjoyed the film immensely and highly recommend it to aficionados of 60's Italian Goth films, or anyone who enjoys a good ghost story.

Rob Rheubottom Winnipeg, MB Canada@@@1 -I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.

I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.

That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.

If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.

Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.

Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.

For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.@@@0 -If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he – Alan Foster – would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror.@@@1 -I've been a fan of all things Bill Maher for 15 years but this film was disappointing and at times disgusting. Of course, I am Catholic, come from a well-educated family and go to church of my own volition, which probably puts me at ends with quite a few of Bill's opinions.

Bill's problem is that he presumes that religion is uniformly negative. He's correct to document the sociological aspects of it i.e. one faith builds its holidays on top of another and that many wars have been started because of religion (or, more accurately, by the sinister appeals of men to the ultimate and unquestionable authority of God), but that said he never looks at its positive side. Quite frankly, I think that hell would freeze over before Bill would ever humble himself and travel to the slums of Calcutta where Mother Theresa spent her life working with the poorest of the poor. She's dead now of course, but he could easily visit the Jesuit priest in East LA who runs Homeboy Industries, which works with young men typically with gang and prison backgrounds to teach them career skills, get their tattoos removed, and to become responsible members of society, or he could visit USC's Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies, which has brought together some of the world's finest theologians, diplomats, and investment bankers to study ways in which to ethically integrate the world's poorest countries into global capital markets and thereby improve the standard of living for the half of the world's people who live on less than $1 a day. Of course he won't do that because that would require him to consider evidence that does not easily fit into his preconceived beliefs about religion, and it's so much easier to continue to make snide, superficial jokes.

That fits into the other large problem with Bill's movie, which is that he never subjects himself to anyone either on his level or who is better than he is. In this movie, you have Maher the Cornell grad spend most of his time talking down to truck drivers at a nondenominational Christian truck stop service, in a night club with a Dutch guy who smokes pot all the time, with the minister of a storefront church in Miami who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ, and with an actor playing Jesus at a "Holy Land" theme park.

What you won't see in Bill's film, beyond some superficial speculation alongside a Ph.D in Grand Central Station that religion chemically alters the brain like drugs do and that religion is the fallacy of tradition wrought on the masses, is any sort of serious and questioning interviews with philosophy and theology professors from schools like Notre Dame, BYU, or Wheaton College, who could easily rhetorically decapitate him in a debate on the matter. You won't see any serious discussion of any of the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, or any papal encyclicals, and of course you also won't find any discussion whatsoever of any of the non-Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) faiths whatsoever. All you get at the end of the day is a textbook example of a condescending, snobby elitist from the west side of LA who makes a movie for his own kind and who has absolutely no gut-level understanding whatsoever of how the other half of America that elected George W. Bush (twice) lives their lives or about the school of thought behind it.

I get a lot of what Bill's saying, but for someone possessing his intellect and influence, this film was nothing less than pathetic. Anyone interested in the kind of intellectual ferment that indie documentaries typically bring could find more stimulation in an old rerun of the Teletubbies.@@@0 -In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.

This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.

This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.

@@@1 -FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.@@@0 -It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.@@@1 -When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.

To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.

Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.@@@0 -The DVD for "Danaza Macabra" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.

The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.

A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.

This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.

The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.

Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot.@@@1 -Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.

In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.

Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.

But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).

It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..@@@0 -I remember seeing this film at the West End theater in Louisville, Kentucky when I was a boy. The scene where Dr. Carmus finds the gardener's coffin, and the breathing dead body therein, was the scariest part of the movie for me, only intensified by the darkness of the film. I also wondered about the people hanging from the trees at the end, until I recognized the part of the film in which the family name of the Blackwoods was changed from Blackblood, due to the fact that in the family history there was a character who was known for his many hangings of various people. Sir Thomas Blackwood seemed to get his kicks out of adding to the deaths caused by his family. I also noticed that as Foster first enters the gate of the cemetery, he is careful in noticing the sharp object of the gate, where he meets his end. I would not hesitate to recommend this film to horror movie lovers.@@@1 -I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.

This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.

I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well… I said so.

Done right… I'd say turn it into an HBO original series… hit a different religion every week.

It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.

Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?@@@0 -This begins a wager between Edgar Allen Poe and a journalist...Poe bets that the man can not spend an entire night in a creepy castle. Well, of course he can, but will he come out unscathed? Hard to say with all these strange people that aren't supposed to be there wandering around, including the icy Barbara Steele. This is a fairly odd film in that the presentation is both in French and English, and switches back and forth a few times. Perhaps this is done because bits of dialog were lost? It's also rather dark and claustrophobic, being that one doesn't see much beyond a small circle of light that candles and such generate, plus there's a feel of dread and impending doom pretty much at all times. This version (on Synapse) is also uncensored and I wondered what might be censored in a film from 1964 until I saw the topless scene, I guess that might be it. Overall this is pretty good and in gloomy black and white. Barbara Steele definitely makes the movie too. 8 out of 10.@@@1 -This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.

EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.

INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.

STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.

ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.

With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.

4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.@@@0 -I have never seen a Barbara Steele movie that I haven't liked, and have always been a sucker for a good haunted-house story (especially for such wonderful pictures as "The Legend of Hell House" and the original versions of "The Haunting" and "House on Haunted Hill"), so I had a feeling that "Castle of Blood" would be right up my alley. And boy, was it ever! This French-Italian coproduction, while perhaps not the classic that Steele's first horror film, "Black Sunday," remains to this day, is nevertheless an extremely atmospheric, chilling entry in the spook genre. Filmed in black and white, it manages to convey a genuinely creepy miasma. The film concerns a journalist who bets one Lord Blackwood and an author named Edgar Allen Poe that he can spend the night in Blackwood's castle on the night of All Saints Day, when the spirits of those killed in the castle reenact their fate. The viewer gets to see these deaths, and they ARE pretty horrible, for the most part. The film does indeed send shivers up the viewer's spine, and in the uncut DVD that I just watched--thanks to the fine folks at Synapse--even features a surprising topless scene and some mild lesbianism! And Barbara is wonderful in this movie; her otherworldly beauty is put to good advantage playing a sympathetic spectre. Her mere presence turns a creepy ghost story into something truly memorable. Not for nothing has she been called "The Queen of Horror."@@@1 -Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.

Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.

I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".

This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.

Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.@@@0 -Well executed old and very dark house horror. Good set-up which includes the character of Poe, himself, alluding to the story in a London pub. Although from here it is pretty much the one guy who has taken the dare to visit the house on a particular night running from room to room either looking for or avoiding people, it is still most enjoyable. Plus we have the delightful and enigmatic Barbara Steele. There is some wooden dialogue and some unexplained bits and bobs but it is the super creepy atmosphere that is maintained throughout, that and the super musical score that keep this one moving nicely along. DVD originates from US and has a few extras@@@1 -Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.

If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.@@@0 -Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra" aka. "Castle Of Blood" of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's "La Maschera Del Demonio" (aka. "Black Sunday") of 1960 and Roger Corman's "Pit And The Pendulum" of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to "Danza Macabra" was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as "Django" (1966) and "The Great Silence" (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and "Castle of Blood" is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece.

When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...

The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. "Castle of Blood" is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: "Castle of Blood" is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10@@@1 -This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.@@@0 -Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra"/"Castle of Blood" is an eerie,atmospheric chiller that succeeds on all fronts.It looks absolutely beautiful in black & white and it has wonderfully creepy Gothic vibe.Alan Foster is an English journalist who pursues an interview with visiting American horror writer Edgar Allan Poe.Poe bets Foster that he can't spend one night in the abandoned mansion of Poe's friend,Thomas Blackwood.Accepting the wager,Foster is locked in the mansion and the horror begins!The film is extremely atmospheric and it scared the hell out of me.The crypt sequence is really eerie and the tension is almost unbearable.Barbara Steele looks incredibly beautiful as sinister specter Elisabeth Blackwood."Castle of Blood" is easily one of the best Italian horror movies made in early 60's.A masterpiece!@@@1 -A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.@@@0 -I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty creepy movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.

Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage?

Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty good. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him is a good one). The creepy atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot better than it should be. I can honestly say that if Barbara Steele had not been in this film, it would be a big zero. She makes the movie a ten!@@@1 -Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.

Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)—two superior mob movies—"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.

Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.

But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not one—not one—character in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okay…so what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.@@@0 -Yakitate! Ja-pan (translated as Fresh Baked! Japanese Bread) is the story of a young man named Azuma Kazuma and his journey to make the perfect Japanese Bread or Ja-pan, for Japan, and for the Japanese, that will be recognized the the whole world.

Of course, that's just on the outside. In reality, Yakitate! Ja-pan isn't really about the bread, but the reaction that come after eating the bread, and the pun that comes with the reaction. The series is lovable because of these puns. From popular anime titles like Naruto, Detective Conan, and Dragon Ball to blockbuster movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. It's all there.

So what makes this title different from other titles of the same genre like Cooking Master Boy or Mr. Ajikko? Well, unlike the others who use cooking for world domination, Yakitate! Ja-pan is purely comedy. Sure, there are times that the story turns to drama, or even murder, but the comedic atmosphere makes you laugh at them. You'll be laughing at their own view of heaven. Just watch it.

Just remember that this is also fiction, although some of the bread made here are based on real bread, eating the home made Japan #2 won't turn you to a Super Saiyan or turn your body to rubber.@@@1 -Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.@@@0 -Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages.@@@1 -John Boorman's 1998 The General was hailed as a major comeback, though it's hard to see why on the evidence of the film itself. One of three films made that year about famed Northern Irish criminal Martin Cahill (alongside Ordinary Decent Criminal and Vicious Circles), it has an abundance of incident and style (the film was shot in colour but released in b&w Scope in some territories) but makes absolutely no impact and just goes on forever. With a main character who threatens witnesses, car bombs doctors, causes a hundred people to lose their jobs, tries to buy off the sexually abused daughter of one of his gang to keep out of jail and nails one of his own to a snooker table yet still remains a popular local legend an attractive enough personality for his wife to not only approve but actually suggest a ménage a trios with her sister, it needs a charismatic central performance to sell the character and the film. It doesn't get it. Instead, it's lumbered with what may well be Brendan Gleeson's worst and most disinterested performance: he delivers his lines and stands in the right place but there's nothing to suggest either a local hero or the inner workings of a complex character. On the plus side, this helps not to overglamorize a character who is nothing more than an egotistical thug, but it's at odds with a script that seems to be expecting us to love him and his antics.

There's a minor section that picks up interest when the IRA whips up a local hate campaign against the 'General' and his men, painting them as 'anti-social' drug dealers purely because Cahill won't share his loot from a robbery with them, but its temporary resolution is so vaguely shot - something to do with Cahill donning a balaclava and joining the protesters which we're expected to find lovably cheeky - that it's just thrown away. Things are more successful in the last third as the pressure mounts and his army falls apart, but by then it's too late to really care. Adrian Dunbar, Maria Doyle Kennedy and the gorgeous Angeline Ball do good work in adoring supporting roles, but Jon Voight's hammy Garda beat cop seems to be there more for American sales than moral balance, overcompensating for Gleeson's comatose non-involvement in what feels like a total misfire. Come back Zardoz, all is forgiven.@@@0 -And my children love it now! Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite. Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.

Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years. I would definitely suggest this one for younger children.@@@1 -Where to start...Oh yea, Message to the bad guys: When you first find the person you have been tracking (in order to kill) that witnessed a crime you committed, don't spend time talking to her so that she has yet another opportunity to get away. Message to the victim: When the thugs are talking amongst themselves and arguing, take that opportunity to "RUN AWAY", don't sit there and watch them until you make a noise they hear. Message to the Director: if someone has a 5 or 10 minute head start in a vehicle or on foot, you can't have the bad guys on their heels or bumper right away! time and motion doesn't work that way. It would also be nice to think that a woman doesn't have to brutally kill( 4) men in order to empower herself to leave an abusive relationship at home.@@@0 -For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show.

In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while.@@@1 -What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.

Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.@@@0 -When I first started watching this anime I never thought that something about making bread could actually be interesting, but thankfully I was mistaken. From the moment I started watching it, anime just pulled into the world of bread making, I was hooked.

The biggest advantage of this anime is it's humor, which is very intelligent and very funny, with some recurring gags. But the animation, soundtrack and character development are below average, while these disadvantages aren't seen so much in the first episodes, because of the great job on this anime, it really starts to show in the last 20 episodes, when the reactions and recurring gags just grow old, and aren't as funny as before.

As far as I'm concerned, if this anime had ended with episode 52 I would have given it a 9, but the last episodes just leave a bitter aftertaste, which sadly can't be washed away by the awesome 50 episodes.

7/10@@@1 -Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.

In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*…) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power!@@@0 -The premise of this anime series is about bread, of all things to base a plot on! I truly laughed. The main character has a special bread making power that he was born with, and he goes off to bread baking school. I wish it were available on DVD, and it doesn't matter if it's subtitled or dubbed - it's that good. Even the theme song alone is funny. At one point in the theme song, there's an African-Japanese man with an afro on horseback, wielding a French baguette as if it were a samurai sword. These images will not make sense unless you see the anime. You'll laugh until your sides hurt. It is definitely the most unique anime I have seen thus far.@@@1 -I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie. I couldn't even call it a movie. It was so bad with nothing to recommend it.

I like low budget movies and weird flicks but this one had me bored to death. Badly made and bad acting ruined it from being curious. You have to wonder what these people were thinking when they spent money to produce this movie. I wonder what I was thinking watching it to the end. I recommend this movie to no one. How did they release this? Was there an audience who likes this kind of movie? There must be because you can find this at almost any video store. But why?

Deserves to be forgotten.

If you like bad movies then this is for you.@@@0 -I usually steer clear of TV movies because of the many ways you know that it's TV movies five seconds into the picture. This one got my attention because of the unusual title and its gloomy, well-crafted mood that is established from the very start. While the ever present rain confirmed my suspicions of a misplaced story (even if claiming to be set in California the movie was largely shot around a stormy Vancouver, B.C.), the dark and oppressive outdoors beautifully complement Olmos' excellent acting.@@@1 -Townies is the laziest movie I have ever seen, and I saw the Blair Witch movies (parts one and two). It seems confused in what it wants to be. It's not funny enough for comedy, it's not tragic enough for drama, it's not bloody enough for horror, and it's not good enough for watching. It has scenes of a man doing "slapstick/bloody" karate so I think, oh this movie will be in the vein of Toxic Avenger and Street Trash. Then it leaps without warning into a drama about a missing girl, a retarded (mentally handicap) woman and a trusting mother. Then it slaps itself into the ONLY good part in the movie which seems to be set up like a sitcom without the laugh tracks. The part I'm speaking of is a lonely TOWNIE who is so lonely he finds comfort in a rotting corpse. That was the ONLY part of the movie that gave me ANY feeling. The rest was a waist of my life. Then, just to show how CRUEL Wayne is there is a kind of DOCUMENTARY at the end of the film of Wayne (the Director) making fun of Toby (the star) in public. It made me sick. Even though Killer Nerd and Bride of Killer Nerd (two other movies by Wayne) aren't the best, they at least are thought out enough were you can stay entertained until the ending credits. I even like Killer Nerd a bit, it had some great lines I still use to this day.

If you like underground films, if you like overground films, and if you like to watch your feet, just resting were they are, you will not like TOWNIES!

*1/2 (out of ****)

@@@0 -This movie is obviously low-budget & filmed in British Columbia,Canada. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make this movie convincing(set in California & late 60's-80's)were well conceived.I believe this is the best & most accurate version of the Zodiac killings that plagued the town of Vallejo & the Bay area from 1968-19? (he was never caught).Edward James Olmos(Det. Dave Toschi) & George Dzundza(Zodiac-at the time believed to be Arthur Leigh Allen, since cleared by DNA & fingerprints)play a game of cat & mouse re-visiting crime scenes together, each one trying to trigger the other into an emotional revelation.Olmos dying from some type of terminal disease & knowing Dzundza did it,still totally obsessed to the point of losing his family & becoming a full blown alcoholic along the way.Dzundza totally oblivious & self absorbed(like all serial killers) to the carnage left in his wake.The only disappointment was the"over the top" ending otherwise pretty accurate.If you tire of the typical Hollywood fluff or have an interest in the Zodiac case,check it out.@@@1 -The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix.@@@0 -Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.

So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments.@@@1 -I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in "The Black Cat" I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in "The Raven." Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.

For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the "mad" role very well - controlled and in control but evil. "Insane" is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in "The Raven" it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.

In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story "The Raven" - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10.@@@0 -...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.

Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.

However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.

And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.

Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.

IMDb votes concur!@@@1 -I'm a Don Johnson fan, but this is undoubtedly the WORST movie, done by anybody, that I've ever seen. The acting was bad, as was the cinematography. Don should stick to doing action, because as The King, he just didn't cut it.@@@0 -Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes!@@@1 -You may say to yourself, "Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off."

NOT!

Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.

The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.

Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.

There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.@@@0 -When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.

I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.

Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.

Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.

Grade: B+@@@1 -In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.

This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.

Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.@@@0 -Today actresses happily gain weight, dye their hair, dress like slobs, and lose their glamor for a role, and Bette Davis was probably the actress who started the trend. Even as a pretty young woman who occasionally wore designer clothes and Constance Bennett-type makeup in films, Davis was willing to ravage herself in order to create a character on the outside as well as the inside.

Her determination is amply demonstrated here in her breakout film, "Of Human Bondage," in which she stars with Leslie Howard as Philip Carey. Davis plays Mildred, a slutty, manipulative, greedy low-life to Howard's masochistic, club-footed Philip. He first meets her when she's a waitress, and she allows him to take her out to dinner and theater while she frolics with a wealthy older man (Alan Hale Sr.). In truth, Mildred is repulsed by Philip's club foot. On his part, Philip seems to enjoy the abuse of her open flirtation and her coolness toward him. He allows Mildred to bleed him dry financially in between boyfriends who drop her when they tire of her, while he blows off a couple of truly lovely women (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee). When he gets the gumption to throw her out, Mildred trashes his apartment and robs him, forcing him to withdraw from medical school and lose his lodgings.

"Of Human Bondage" looks rather stilted today in parts. Though Leslie Howard was a wonderful actor and attractive, his acting style is of a more formal old school, and as a result, he tends to date whatever he's in. He shines in material like his role opposite Davis in "It's Love I'm After" or "The Petrified Forest" which call for his kind of technique. His dated acting is even more obvious here because Davis was forging new ground with a gritty, edgy performance that would really make her name. If she seems at times over the top, she came from the stage, and the subtleties of film acting would emerge later for her. Contrast this performance with the restraint, warmth and gentleness of her Henriette in "All This, and Heaven Too" or the pathos she brought to "Dark Victory." She was a true actress and a true artist. Davis really allows herself to look like holy hell; Mildred's deterioration is absolutely pathetic as Philip seems to gain strength as her spirit fades.

An excellent film in which to see the burgeoning of one of film's greatest stars.@@@1 -Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.

As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.

Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.

That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.

Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.

I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).@@@0 -I grew up on this movie and I can remember when my brother and I used to play in the backyard and pretend we were in Care-a-lot. Now, after so many years have passed, I get to watch the movie with my daughter and watch her enjoy it. If you are parent and you have not watched this movie with your children, then you should, just so you hold them in your arms and watch them get thrilled over the care bears and care-a-lot! The songs, especially "Forever Young" are very sweet and memorable. Parents, I highly recommend this movie for all kids so they can learn how enjoyable caring for others can be! When it comes down to all the trash that is on TV, you can raise your children to have the right frame of mind about life with movies like these.@@@1 -The only redeeming qualities this movie has are the fairly original death scenes. Other than that this movie is a big DUD. We have Kim Basinger, the beleaguered housewife slowly meandering thru the local mall for the first 30 min. of the movie, which added nothing. Then the movie picks up a bit as she has a confrontation with 4 punks who took up 2 parking spaces on this busy xmas eve. They begin to chase her after offing the local security guard who tried to help her. From there this movie gets worse, way worse. I know its only a movie and you've gotta go with the flow but she's got about a 5 min. headstart and she can't hide or find someone to help her. Instead she drives to a half built subdivision beside a forest. In typical fashion she does everything she can to allow her followers to easily track her. But now she turns into one tough mofu. You get the point. Do not under any circumstances buy or rent this movie no matter how much you like this type. It's so illogical you'll be questioning every scene. It is embarrassing for Basinger and Craig Sheffer and the rest of the cast, as well as the consumers.@@@0 -Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.

The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.

But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.

For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.@@@1 -In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.@@@0 -Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's "Of Human Bondage"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a "club foot" (explained in the film).

Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of "Mildred" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to "WIPE MY MOUTH!" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted.

Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a "write-in" campaign for the 1934 "Best Actress" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were:

1. Claudette Colbert - "It Happened One Night"

2. Norma Shearer - "The Barretts of Wimpole Street"

3. Bette Davis - "Of Human Bondage"

4. Grace Moore - "One Night of Love"

******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny@@@1 -Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. "A Walk on the Moon" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.

The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.

The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the "blouse salesman" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.

That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.

Poor Diane Lane, she went to make "Unfaithful" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!

Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film.@@@0 -The movie may be great. I just watched it last night, but feel unable to give an honest opinion of it because I read the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that I was disappointed with the film. If you plan to watch "Of Human Bondage," don't read the book beforehand. On the other hand, the book is so good, and contains so much more than the love affair Phillip has with Mildred, you could still enjoy it after seeing the movie. I do not make this claim lightly. I average reading a book every 4 days, and read such disparate authors as Danielle Steel, Ovid, Faulkner, Plato, and Shakespeare. "Of Human Bondage" gets my vote as one of the top ten novels ever written.@@@1 -Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them@@@0 -Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.

After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with "why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available". You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called "baby", never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.

At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as "you cad, you dirty swine", "I only kissed you because you begged me" and "when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH"!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as "you're a gentleman in every sense of the word", "I don't mind", and "Mr. High and Mighty" were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.

The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's "sickness" could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.

Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face ("The Silver Cord" and "Blood Money") but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines "whilst reading a book off camera". He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported "the kid was running away with the picture"!!!

Highly, Highly Recommended.@@@1 -Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.@@@0 -This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others.

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.@@@1 -Any movie that portrays the hard-working responsible husband as the person who has to change because of bored, cheating wife is an obvious result of 8 years of the Clinton era.

It's little wonder that this movie was written by a woman.@@@0 -I saw this film again and noticed how close it is to the novel if we ignore the part about Cary's [Leslie Howard] childhood. Considering that

at the time not much can be shown on the screen, [not that there is much in the novel] the obsession of the character with Mildred [Bette Davis] is very well conveyed to the audience. I recommend this film to anyone who ever fell for another person and the other side tried to take advantage of him or her. I have read that Maugham was asked to make a recording of the novel for sale, but when he started to in the studio he began crying and could not finish more than a few lines and whole project was chucked. One can tell the novel is written from the heart and the film is a good

adaptation of a part of it at least.@@@1 -Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.@@@0 -Bette Davis turns in a coldly amusing performance as Mildred Rogers in this 1934 film. The film seems rather dated now in 2003. It is no doubt well worth watching for film buffs and Bette Davis fans but may not have as much appeal for the average movie watcher today. It was startling for me to see how young Ms. Davis looks in this move. The actors turn in performances which are basically sound and the story is meaningful and interesting. Leslie Howard is well cast as Philip Carey, the club-footed medical student. This is a film with a strong message about whom we choose to love and why. However, "Of Human Bondage" didn't seem to have a strong impact on me mentally or emotionally. I felt slightly indifferent and detached about the movie after viewing it. I have an intuition that this may be the reaction that the director was going for. You be the judge!

@@@1 -Here again is yet another Diane Lane movie where she cheats on her husband. Is this the only role she knows how to play? This time it's set in 1969 and she cheats on her husband with the blouse man. I am so not surprised because that is so very predictable. Then her husband gets mad and throws the milk. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the milkman as well. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the ice cream man too because this is a very boring movie. Then after some milk throwing, she says sorry and sees the blouse man again. Duh. Then while she is making it with him, her son gets stung by wasps. My mom always told me not to throw rocks at a wasps nest. This kids mom didn't have time to tell him that, she was too busy with the blouse man.@@@0 -The story is somewhat stilted, what with the main character's sudden reversals of fortune, but Leslie Howard and Bette Davis's portrayals of Philip Carey, the naïve obsessed lover and Mildred Rogers, the unworthy object of his affections, raise this film considerably above standard melodrama.

Sensitive, cultured Philip, who for most of the picture is in bondage to first his infatuation and then his pity for Mildred is not unlike a character Howard was to play a few years later--Ashley Wilkes, the Southern gentleman too refined and decent to make it in the rough Reconstruction era. Philip in fact seems resigned to disappointment even before Mildred enters the picture—he doesn't even seem particularly surprised when his art teacher tells him he'll never make it as a painter. It is perhaps this passivity, these lowered expectations that makes him put up with the selfish Cockney waitress for as long as he does.

Although Leslie Howard is memorable, today "Of Human Bondage" is mainly thought of as a Bette Davis picture, perhaps because of the well known story of how she had to fight Jack Warner to get the part of Mildred, and perhaps too because movie audiences tend to prefer characters with her sort of brash energy. Mildred may have a grating voice, but she also has the ethereal beauty of a stained glass angel, making it somewhat understandable why Philip let himself be strung along for as long as he did. Although man eating Mildred may at times seem one dimensional, she does evoke sympathy in the viewer from time to time as when she becomes ill and belatedly realizes that Philip is the only decent man who ever cared for her. One may also think she is on to something when she accuses Philip of looking down on her for not being "fine" enough. (The scene in which Philip and Norah dismiss romance magazines as trash for kitchen maids seems to confirm this).

Most of the supporting characters are also effective, particularly Norah the sensible romance writer who loves Philip but knows she can never compete with Mildred and Sally who has Mildred's beauty and Norah's decency and emerges as the deserving woman Philip is rewarded with in the end. The only character I found hollow was Sally's eccentric, ale slurping aristocratic father who seems like a stock character from an earlier era.

A classic that deserves it reputation.@@@1 -Sorry Fulci fans, but I could not get through this one. The soundtrack was about as annoying as they come, the acting was puerile, the story has been done and done, and the direction was non-existent.

Massacre honestly looked like a children's film project. But I've seen some of those, and they actually look better than this did! It appears to have been so underfunded they couldn't afford ... ANYTHING! Not a DoP, not a director, no one who even remotely had a clue what acting was. It was a very poor cinematic experience; one of my worst.

This was about the worst suck-fest I've seen, next to Terror Toons which is second only to Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I've nothing else to say about it.

It rates a 0.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.@@@0 -I just saw "Of Human Bondage" for the first time a few days ago and WOW! What a mysterious and almost spooky film. I loved how the music went with the pace of each step of Philip's feet. It gave me the chills for some reason...

One of the greatest aspects of this film is that you get to see Bette Davis coming into herself right before your eyes. She's great, not necessarily because this is her best work, but because it was so out of the ordinary to be so vicious, gritty, and unflinching as an actress in 1934... Bette was a risk taker, always wanting to be different and this is right about when she started to realize that she could be as nasty and daring as she wanted and people would love her for it. If you're a true lover of film, it's amazing to see...

She just had a way of delivering a line that made the part, and the film for that matter, belong to her. Like "A mass of music and fire. That's me...an old kazoo and some sparklers" or "But you are Blanche, you are in that chair!" or "WITH ALL MY HEART, I STILL LOVE THE MAN I KILLED!!"... Those are from a few of her films, but you get my drift. She was just so brave, sassy, and exotic looking with those beautiful big eyes. After seeing this, I can't believe it was remade twice...

Leslie Howard was gorgeous...so calm and persistent, needing to be loved. I thought he was adorable and couldn't understand how everyone wasn't falling for him, but then again, everyone was...except Mildred. He did a great job...

The only thing that I didn't like was something that was common with the writing in the early films. They'd make a character so hateful that it's almost unbelievable that someone would actually fall for them in the first place. The performances were great, but in real life, Philip would have never been interested in Mildred. That's just the simple truth... See it!!@@@1 -In case half of this film's footage looks strangely familiar, it means you watch way too much of this gory Italian cult-crap! For you see, the notorious demigod Lucio Fulci did not only produce this movie, he also took the liberty of re-using the most sadistic killing sequences in his own (and more easily traceable) "Cat in the Brain". The opening scene already, in which a prostitute is brutally decapitated with an axe, features in Fulci's later film and so do another handful of killings and sleaze moments. Andrea Bianchi's "Masssacre" fails miserably as a giallo, since the search for the sadistic killer among a movie-crew shooting a horror movie is all but compelling and suspenseful, but it's still good entertainment if you're into cheap 'n shlocky horror trash. The incoherent script introduces a whole bunch of repugnant characters who're all potential maniacs, but none of the red herrings Biachi comes up with are plausible and you can point out the killer almost immediately. Whatever remains to enjoy are the truly misogynous make-up effects and the hilariously awful acting performances of the ensemble cast. Whenever there isn't any bloodshed on screen, like between the first and second murder, "Massacre" is a slow and almost intolerable with its inane dialogs and thoroughly unexciting photography. Thankfully in the second half, there are women getting impaled on fences and males being stabbed repeatedly with rusty spikes. The music is crap and the use of filming locations is very unimaginative. My advise would be to skip this puppy and go straight for the aforementioned "Cat in the Brain". That one features ALL the great moments of "Massacre", and then some.@@@0 -This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.

I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.

In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics.@@@1 -Prior to this film, I had only seen two films by director Andrea Bianchi: the trashy zombie flick Le Notti del Terrore (1981), famous amongst horror fans for its unforgettable performance from man-child Peter Bark, and the enjoyably sleazy giallo Strip Nude For Your Killer. Neither film was a particularly spectacular piece of cinema, but both were entertaining in their own special way (and the fact that they featured plenty of gore and nudity didn't hurt). Massacre, however, is dull, dull, dull, despite quite a bit of splatter and the odd spot of gratuitous bare flesh.

The story, about a series of murders in a hotel where the cast and crew of a horror film are residing during their shoot, is confusing and oh-so boring: when the blood isn't flowing and the skin isn't on show, the film is a real struggle to sit through (it took me four attempts to finish), with endless scenes of unlikeable characters bickering among themselves and doing very little of note.

The only point of interest about the film is that its producer, Lucio Fulci, used several of its death scenes to pad out his mega-gory movie Cat In The Brain (AKA Nightmare Concert). And if you've already seen that film, then there is very little reason to bother with Massacre.@@@0 -Care Bears Movie 2: A New Generation isn't at all a bad movie. In fact, I like it very much. Yes I admit the dialogue is corny and the story is a bit poorly told at times. But Darkheart, while very very dark is a convincing enough shape shifting villain, and Hadley Kay did a superb job voicing him. Speaking of the voice acting, it was great, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The animation is colourful, and some of the visuals particularly at the beginning were breathtaking. The songs and score are lovely, especially Growing Up and Forever Young, the latter has always been my personal favourite of the two. The care bears, who I do like, are adorable, and the human children are well done too. And the ending is a real tearjerker. All in all, harmless kiddie fun. 8/10 Bethany Cox@@@1 -Overall this movie is dreadful, and should have never been made. One of the problems with this movie is that there is no link to the audience and the characters, for example, if she is about to be attacked, you want to feel, "Oh My God, No!", but you don't in this case, you don't care because there is no link that has been made to know the character. In the trailer, it seemed as though the movie would be great, yet there is no suspense what so ever really. There could have been maybe some mystery but there is not. "All she has is a toolbox." was said on the DVD's back, you would think that it was carefully planned this movie, and cleverly made, but it is not, The ending, was just awful, very straight forward, and pointless too. The acting is either average or below average, maybe even lower. In my opinion it was a waste of an hour of my life. The "Special Effects" and sets were average too, nothing special what so ever. There is not much gore, or bloody violence, not much blood is shown. This movie was advertised to make it sound quite amazing, yet really, its not even worth looking for, I do not recommend this to anyone, unless they are easily satisfied, by a few fights and a boring story.@@@0 -Bette Davis' cockney accent in this film is absolutely appalling. I totally understand that Americans and other nationalities mightn't realise this and that's fine; but believe me, it's about half as good as Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent in Mary Poppins, and that was a right load of old pony (slipped into London vernacular there - many apologies).

The remarkable thing to me is that the strange accents and exaggerated acting styles don't detract from the films' power. Of Human Bondage is a fascinating piece of cinema despite its superficial faults. It also has to be viewed in perspective. The technical and cultural limitations of film making at the time have to be appreciated, and given those limitations John Cromwell does a very good job directing the camera and allowing the narrative to develop cinematically rather than solely via the mannered acting and stilted dialogue. A fine example of his skillful direction is the scene set at Victoria Station. It is beautifully conceived, shot and edited. Note too the stark shots of the prostrate Mildred towards the end of the film; they owe more to the early days of artistic film making than the sanitised, formulaic world of the studio that was about to dominate.

The themes of the film are universally familiar and compelling ones: sexual obsession, unrequited love, scorned passion, self-loathing, manipulative relationships, social divides and youthful folly. Though the dialogue is often rather hackneyed, the difficult task of portraying these themes and the inner lives of the characters is tackled well albeit in a low-key way. Some of the scenes of obsession and emotional rejection are uncomfortable to watch but the story doesn't descend into cliché; we're aware that the characters (even the poisonous Mildred) are both victims and perpetrators, and that their actions are motivated by their misunderstanding of each others feelings as well as by wilful selfishness. Whilst naive in style the story reaches to the complex heart of the human condition and the mannered nature of the acting and the occasionally grating exchanges don't diminish the veracity of the work.

Of Human Bondage was one of the films that got Bette Davis noticed in Hollywood and whilst watching it you are conscious of being witness at the birth of a celebrated career. Her unconventional beauty and screen charisma (no one flounced or did disdain quite like Ms Davis) grab your attention from her first appearance. Whilst hers is definitely the memorable performance in the film, Leslie Howard is also excellent as the sensitive and fragile student Philip Carey. They are a good combination, though, why oh why didn't he help her with that terrible, terrible accent!?@@@1 -Massacre is a film directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground) and produced by legendary Italian horror director Lucio Fulci. Now with this mix of great talent you would think this movie would have been a true gore fest. This could not be further from that. Massacre falls right on its face as being one of the most boring slasher films I have seen come out of Italian cinema. I was actually struggling to stay awake during the film and I have never had that problem with Italian horror films.

Massacre starts out with a hooker being slaughtered on the side of the road with an ax. This scene was used in Fulci's Nightmare Concert. This isn't a bad scene and it raises your expectations of the movie as being an ax wielding slaughter. Unfortuanitly, the next hour of the movie is SO boring. The movie goes on to a set of a horror film being filmed and there is a lot of character development during all these scenes but the characters in the movie are so dull and badly acted your interest starts to leak away. The last 30 minutes of the movie aren't so bad but still could have been much better. The gore in the movie was pathetic and since Fulci used most of the gore scenes in Nightmare Concert there was nothing new here. The end of the movie did leave a nice twist but there was still to much unanswered and the continuity falls right through the floor.

This wasn't a very good film but for a true Italian horror freak (like myself) this movie is a must have since it is very rare. 4/10 stars@@@0 -The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.

Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated.@@@1 -Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this.@@@0 -Enjoyable in spite of Leslie Howard's performance. Mr. Howard plays Philip as a flat, uninteresting character. One is supposed to feel sorry for this man; however, I find myself cheering Bette Davis' Mildred. Ms. Davis gives one her finest performances (she received an Academy Award nomination). Thanks to her performance she brings this rather dull movie to life. **Be sure not to miss when Mildred tells Philip exactly how she feels about him.@@@1 -A trio of low-life criminals, led by Matt Dillon, botches a late-night burglary. They flee but quickly cross paths with the police who just happen to be in hot pursuit of a terrorist. Of course the police mistake the burglar gang for the terrorist, the real terrorist gets away, and the burglars are forced to take refuge in a small dive of a bar, taking hostages, unaware why the police are so intent on catching them. And guess who else has picked the bar as a sanctuary for the night?

Unbelievable? Absolutely. And it goes down hill from there. Spacey did acquire a good bit of acting talent; Matt Dillon, Faye Dunaway, Gary Sinise, Viggo Mortensen, and M. Emmett Walsh, but they're all wasted. Mostly because after all the characters get stuck in the bar, all they do for the remainder of the film is argue. Endlessly and aimlessly. Long before the conclusion of the film you've stopped giving a damn about what happens to them.@@@0 -This movie is about sexual obsession. Bette Davis plays Mildred. This is a woman who men are drawn to. Not because she is a nice beautiful girl but because she is a sexual entity. Now the movie does not come out and say that but it is obvious. There is a scene in the movie in which men are all going googly eyes over her. She works as a waitress in a coffee shop, she can't read and she not really anybody to look at but she is a flirt. It is obvious the male customers in that coffee shop are there because of her. One day Phillip a club footed failed painter medical student comes in the shop to say a good word for his friend but he becomes besotted the moment he sees her. He starts buying her things even pays for her apartment. Meanwhile she is seeing other people and she makes no secrets of it. He dreams about her like she is a angel, but she is no angel. He is constantly thinking about her. His med school grades are even failing. So what the nookie is too good. He wants to marry her but she rejects him because she is marrying another guy. She always lets Phil know she really doesn't have love feelings for him all of time. He is heart broken but he meets another woman. They seem fine but it is obvious he is still dreaming of the Bimbo. Mildred does comes back with a baby and unwed. Phillip takes her in again, but she starts going out with a friend of his, the light bulb comes on a little and he kicks her out. She does what she knows works so she tries to seduce him, well it doesn't work and she proceeds to burn his tuition money up. Oh we have a club foot that he has problems about, even though a street teenager who has the same problem tells him to lighten up about it. He meets another girl named Sally we have a March of time montage which shows her aging while he strings her along still waiting for Mildred. Well he has no school tuition, can't find a job. Finally Sally and her dad takes him in. Not before another March of Time montage showing him going downhill. Soon his uncle who raised him dies and he gets money to become a doctor. Meanwhile he finds Mildred needs him again. She has TB. meanwhile he is still leading Sally down the Primrose path about marriage and he takes a job on a steamship. Finally the bimbo dies and Phillip declares he is free now and he will marry Sally. I wished she told him to stuff it. Now I know my take on the characters are not going to get me any points. But I feel Phillip was the bad guy. Yes Mildred is a Strumpet BUT he knows it, and he keeps coming back. Mean while he has two other girlfriends who love him but he treats as appetizers. I guess the sex wasn't as good. But in any case he dogs those women waiting for Mildred. Not only that but the man who gets Mildred pregnant is already married and when Philip asks him what he intends to do about Baby ( apparently the baby's name) he laughs is off, he has no intention in supporting her and Baby and he is wealthy. Sally's father who has 9 children say some pretty nasty things about women but he is said to be a old traditionalist. Philip doesn't seem to refute his feelings either. Men are using Mildred as a Boy Toy but the men in this movie come out as unscathed. Yes she was not a respectable woman but far from a villain. To me it is Philip who was had the real problem and it was his sexual obsession for Mildred.@@@1 -by Dane Youssef

A gang of crooks. The perfect plan. It all goes wrong. They're in trouble. The police are outside. They're cornered. What are they gonna do now?

Sound familiar?

The movie seems like it's trying to be a combination of the acting workshop, the "indie" film and the theater.

It's the kind of things that actors love--it's kind of like a workshop or a play because it mostly consists of tight focusing on the actors acting... acting angry, tense, scared, conversing, scheming, planning--giving the performers a lot of free range to really ham it all up.

A trio of crooks, one leader, one goon, one brother, come up with a big heist scheme... and a monkey wrench is thrown into the works. To top things off, there's a bit of a "fender-bender" and one of the crooks in flung through the back of the windshield.

The cops are on their tail and they stumble into a bar named poetically (and leadenly) "Dino's Last Chance."

Spacey, as a director, tries to keep the focus on the actors' performances and delivery of dialouge. He pans over to a bright passion-red cigarette ad of a smoking and smoldering Bogart. And he keeps all the violence off-screen, really.

I think that was a mistake. Focusing on the intensity and gruesome violent scenes would have given the movie some edge.

The problem with the movie is that it moves too slow and suffers from miscasting in almost every role. Matt Dillon ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "Wild Things") seems too young and too idealistic to be the leader of this gang.

Gary Sinese seems to brooding and deep in thought to be a spineless tag-along with these guys and Joe Mantaga is effective as the traditional routine foul-swearing mad-dog police lieutenant who's all thumbs, but he isn't given anything to really do here.

William Fischter is the only actor who is believable in his role as a brainless grunt who just wants to spill blood.

And the crooks are in a tense situation where they either go to jail or they try to think of some way out of this.

Spacey lacks the ability to create a lot of tension and keep it going. The characters are mostly chatting away, trying to think of a plan... and they're to calm and too articulate. There's even a scene where the crooks are playing pool with a whole swarm of armed cops right outside, ready to strike. At one point, one of the crooks even call the police who are right outside the bar. Oh brother. Oh bother.

These cops are going to either blow them away or going to lock them up. Shouldn't the holed-up crooks be a little scared, a little uneasy? Meanwhile, all the real action is happening inside.

Someone whips out a gun, a baseball bat, which leads to an ugly confrontation off-screen and there's one more casualty that happens that's... well, kinda sad. But...

Faye Dunaway also should have spent more time with a dialect coach, improving on her New Orleans accent. Skeet Ullrich is fine in a smaller part.

A cop listening in reaches for a pack of matches at the absolute worst time is a nice look. And so is a scene where someone goes right through the rear windshield.

The dialouge is obviously trying to go for a David Mamet approach and it's as profane, but never as realistic or as insightful.

The movie feels like too much of what it really is... a really low-budget movie with an actor behind the camera for the first time directing other actors from a script that's "not bad, but needs a few more re-writes." Spacey shows he's not a terrible director, but he lacks a sort of feel for "shaping a movie" and it feels like he's just filming actors act.

These actors are all talented and could work with the material, but they all feel out of place. As I said before, the movie really suffers from miscasting.

I don't mean that the wrong actors were cast. I think they found just the right cast, but placed them in all the wrong roles. I think switching some of the roles would've helped immensely.

Having veteran mob actor Joe Mantagna play the leader of the pack, Gary Sinese as the angry police lieutenant outside on his bullhorn giving orders and barking at his troops, keeping Fischter in his "bloodthirsty goon" part and Matt Dillion as the sacrificial lamb. That would have been a big improvement.

When some actors direct, it works. They can even win Oscars for it. But a lot of the time, when actors direct, they have a tendency to just focus on the performances. Just shoot the actors acting.

Sometimes it works... but they need a good showcase for it. An excuse for it.

Hostage situations are all pretty much the same in real life just like coming-of-age stories so it's only natural that movies about them will go from point A to point B as well.

There are a few really great entries into this genre.' Spacey himself appeared in a similar movie about hostage situations: "The Negotiator."

This certainly won't become a cult classic, let alone one of AFI's 100. Still, it does have a few nice moments and personal touches, but in the end, it's instantly forgettable and the kind of movie that would play best on regular TV. It's just not worth going out of your way to see.

I give a 3 out of 10.

Spacey's other directorial credit, "Beyond The Sea" was reportedly a better effort. Hmmm... maybe it's true. You need to fail before you succeed.

by Dane Youssef@@@0 -I happen to like Leslie Howard, in his better films. Yet, for some reason, his performance in OF HUMAN BONDAGE never has moved me tremendously. I first saw the film on my college campus in 1972 and the reviewer in the college newspaper made the comment that in the 1930s and 1940s Howard played the roles supposedly later picked up by Dirk Bogard as the man who was born to be betrayed. This is not usually the case (off hand I think of Ashley Wilkes as a man who might be betrayed, if he and Scarlett O'Hara were meant to be an item by Margaret Mitchell - but Ashley loved Melonie, not Scarlett). Howard could play any type, and a role like R. J. Mitchell or Professor Henry Higgins is not one who is betrayed.*

(*One can make the case that Philip Armstrong Scott is betrayed by the two strangers he shows hospitality to in 49TH PARALLEL, but they are Nazis who consider him - a liberal, westerner, Canadian - fair game to double cross in wartime. It isn't the same as emotional betrayal, and Howard does not shrivel up as a result, but faces the Nazis and captures one after beating him up.)

I think what the reviewer meant was that Howard could be soulful - or try to be soulful. Witness his poet - dreamer - wanderer in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. But that character was not betrayed, except by history perhaps (as he feels his type is as out of date as the gangster played by Humphrey Bogart). The character of Philip Carey in Somerset Maugham's OF HUMAN BONDAGE is soulful too. He is sensitive for several reasons. He has an interest in art and tries to become a painter - but unlike the artist Strickland in THE MOON AND SIXPENCE he has no real talent. So he decides to concentrate on medical studies, accentuated by a club foot condition he has. Here he is a man with low self-esteem who is set up to be betrayed.

Philip finds that betrayal in the form of Mildred a Cockney waitress (Bette Davis) who is mercenary and as selfish as they come. Why Philip falls for her is not really addressed in the film, but he does find the woman fascinating. And she finds him an easy meal ticket. Ironically in being so captivated by this slut, Philip fails to notice two other women who are interested in him (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee), and are more fit to be his mate. He also keeps finding himself forgiving Davis when she has affairs with other men (Alan Hale and Reginald Denny - the latter a friend of Howard's).

Although Howard's performance captures the doormat tendency of Philip towards Mildred, he really does not show enough passion (until late in the movie, when he turns on her). That is why I find I never cared for his performance here - it lacks any reality. His later tortured insistence in GONE WITH THE WIND that he loves Olivia De Haviland, not Vivian Leigh, has more consistency with a man in love. But the performance of Davis as Mildred makes the film important. She had a wide variety of parts up to 1934, like the girlfriend of the deaf pianist in THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD or the spoiled heiress who gets murdered in FOG OVER FRISCO or the mouse-like secretary in THREE ON A MATCH. As Mildred she finally showed she could be a major actress by playing a selfish bitch.

Curiously her performance was not all of one note. While she uses and abuses Howard for two thirds of the film, culminating in that famous scene where she shows how disgusted his kissing of her made her, her last scenes show she too could fall apart due to her health deteriorating, and her inability to keep any honest jobs. When Howard rejects her the viewers fail to note how equally vicious he becomes (he asks what happened to her baby - she tells him the baby died and Howard says brusquely that he is glad, which is hardly the response she expects). In the end Howard does finally get his life in order, but Mildred ends a casualty (ironically her death discovered by her old boyfriend Denny on a medical call). The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences did fail to nominate Davis in 1934 (leading to the largest write - in campaign in it's history, and a permanent change in it's rules), but Davis was established as a star. In one year she won the Oscar as Joyce Heth in DANGEROUS. And in two years she co-starred with Howard again (as equal stars) in THE PETRIFIED FORREST.@@@1 -On the face of it, this should be a great film, a great cast, a plot with many possibilities and one of Hollywood's finest behind the camera for the first time.

However, its clear why it was another 8 years before spacey decided to try directing a movie again. This movie fails on so many levels. In a film where there is not much action and most of the scenes are shot in a couple of locations, it is imperative that suspense and continuity are provided by the director. Not so here, the great cast is horribly under-used, none more so than the great, late John Spencer, the plot is so run of the mill and nothing you haven't seen in a hundred other TV movies. There is so little character development you end up not caring for any of the protagonists. At least we know spacey has a lot of mates and clout in Hollywood studios to get away with a poor flick like this@@@0 -Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.

I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.

I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.

"Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.

Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.

It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.

Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.

Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.@@@1 -Although it has been 2 years, I still remember the complete waste that comprises the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately, I came across this movie after my friends and I selected it while browsing through the new releases at Blockbuster. We decided to pick the movie because it was the only one we all had not seen and it sounded like it may be enjoyable. Although it has been quite some time since I viewed the movie, I still remember the lack of plot (seriously, there is no true plot), and complete waste of time that was spent watching the movie. If you are in the video store and this film catches your eye, walk on and find a better movie. If you did end up seeing this movie, I understand your pain :)@@@0 -Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.

While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).

Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.

Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah.

Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.

The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.

Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.

Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.

Available on DVD.

9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances)@@@1 -I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.@@@0 -How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.@@@1 -Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.@@@0 -Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.

Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.

Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.

Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending.@@@1 -Serious HOME ALONE/KARATE KID knock off with enough bad character stereotypes to have the writer sued and then shot. You could see blatant stunt man usage in almost every scene. Oh, and the acting sucks too. Although I must say that the line: "Sorry, dude, I have to take a major dump big time" made me laugh my ass off.@@@0 -This movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him ("You cad, you dirty swine....") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on film.@@@1 -I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.

In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.

Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.

The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.

The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.

With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.

2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.@@@0 -This movie does contradict the first one as far as the origins of the Care Bears and the Care Bear Cousins goes. I won't deny that. However, if you look at "Part II" as a separate film, then it's a very good movie. I remember watching this in the early 80's (and fitting into its targeted demographic audience then), and absolutely loving it much more than the first movie (not that I didn't enjoy that one too, it's just that this one seemed to have a little something extra to it). Sure it's darker than the first one too, but perhaps maybe that's why it's so good. And it's dark in deeper kind of subtle way too (that kids may not fully understand, but could still be a bit scared of because of the atmosphere it gives off, and adults watching will surely get quicker as I have now watching this film again now in my mid-twenties) where you basically have a young girl making a deal with an evil spirit/demon in exchange for something else. Get the picture? But simply watching that as a child, sure as I said it may have been a little scary, but nothing traumatizing. In fact if anything it gave me another fantasy game I could play when I was that age. I can't tell you the number of times I used to pretend Dark Heart wanted to imprison me, have me help him capture the Care Bears, tried to make me turn over to his dark side, and other things like that etc. So this movie was also good for my imagination. And it's also got great emotional depth to it too. I used to watch it at least once a week.

Also Hadley Kay was the perfect choice for the voice of Dark Heart (I always thought so and I always will).

Now it's just too bad that they never made a soundtrack available. Sometimes I just want to hear Growing Up without watching the movie, as good as it is.

"What good is love and caring if it can't save her?"@@@1 -I can't believe the likes of Guillermo del Toro and Kim Bassinger got involved ins this piece of garbage! The script is so poorly written and the directing so weak (both by the same person) that its hard to find more one-dimension characters in a film. The dialogs are so lame that this so called thriller got laughs out of the few fools that got into the theatre. The setup it's tricky, inviting you to believe you are going to watch a chilling thriller and suddenly it turns out into the most stupid persecution film. Bassinger's character is so dumb, that she actually stops to scream to God "Where are you!" so the people after her can follow, and then takes a leak!!!! And then she apparently got into the smallest wood in the world, I mean, she runs all over the place and the killers never loose track of her, and this happens in the middle of the night. It really makes me wonder, is that really the best writing people in Hollywood can find that they spend millions producing it.@@@0 -**SPOILER ALERT** W. Somerset Maugham classic on film about a love obsessed young man who's abused hurt and humiliated by the object of his obsession to the point of losing everything he has only to find true love in the end under the most unusual circumstances.

Leslie Howard plays the role of Philip Carey a sensitive young artiest in Paris trying to make a living by selling his paintings. Told by a local art expert that his work is not at all good enough to be sold to the art going public Philip decides to go back to his native England and study medicine and become a physician in order to help others.

Philip being born with a club foot is very hypersensitive about his awkward condition and makes up for that by being a very pleasant and friendly person. One afternoon Philip is at a local café with a fellow medical student and spots pretty waitress Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis, and immediately falls in love with her. Mildred at first rebuffs the love-sick Philip but later realizing just what a sap he is takes advantage of his feelings for her. Mildred has him spend himself into poverty buying her gifts and taking her out to the theater every time she off from work. Phlip also falls behind on his studies, by paying so much attention towards Mildred, at the medical university and fails his final exams.

Going into hock buying an engagement ring for Mildred in an attempt to ask for her hand in marriage the cold hearted Mildred tells the startled Philip that she's already engaged to be married to Emil Miller, Alan Hale. It turns out that he's one of the customers at the café that she's always flirting with.

Philip broke and heart-sick slowly get his life back together and later retakes his medical exam and passes it and at the same time finds a new love in Nora, Fay Johnson, a writer for a local love magazine. Later to Philip's shock and surprise Mildred walks back into his life.

Mildred telling Philip that her husband Emil, who's child she's carrying, threw her out of the house has the kind and understanding Philip take her back at the expense of Nora who was very much in love with him. It later turns out that Mildred wasn't married to Emil but had a child out of wedlock by having an illicit affair with him! Emil it turns out was already married.

As before Mildred takes advantage of Philip's kind heart for her and her baby daughter, where he supports them with food medical attention and shelter, to the point where he again goes broke and can't continue his studies ending with her leaving Philip; after having a very heated and emotional encounter with him. Out on the streets with nowhere to go Philip is taken in by Mr. Athanly, Reginald Owens, who he once treated at the hospital and falls in love with his daughter Sally, Frances Dee.

Later Philip has his club foot corrected at the medical center and with the help of Mr. Athenly gets back to being a doctor. It's then when he encounters Mildred again who's really at the end of her rope. Dying of tuberculosis and having lost her daughter she's all alone with no one to look after her. Philip now well to do and respected in medical circles does all he can to help the sick and poor Mildred but in the end she succumbed to her illness and passes away.

Mildred had the love and devotion in Philip all those years that he was in love with her but choose to abuse him and have affairs with man who were just like her, cold unfeeling and selfish. In the end Mildred got back just what she gave to the kind and sensitive Philip: She became both unloved and alone. Philip found in the sweet and caring Sally everything that Mildred wasn't and in the end also found the true love that he was looking for all of his life.@@@1 -Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.

The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinemathèque would have known better.@@@0 -Of the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.

The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.

Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.

Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.

This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget it!@@@1 -...because 99 out of 100 times, the producers lied through their teeth (or someone else's) to get you to rent or buy their *mercifully censored*.

Shock-O-Rama Cinema proves the truth of this yet one more time with the release of "Feeding the Masses," a possibly well-intentioned but utterly inept and dismal entry into the zombie genre. Folks, this is not only low-budget film-making, this is VERY low-budget film-making by a bunch of people who--I'm sorry, I know they have families who love them--will never, ever be in Variety in any significant fashion. This is one baaaaaaaaaad mooin' pitcher, folks, and not just because it's cheap.

The acting is mediocre, but I don't blame the actors; they had no direction. They had no direction because the script was a half-baked zombie fantasy with no sense of real cinematic storytelling. Characterization is thin at best, no thanks to weak dialogue and soporific direction. Have I mentioned yet that the script and the direction are pretty lame? They are. There's no drama, no tension, no great character moments, nothing. The whole premise of government suppression of the media is squandered on sophomoric "commercial breaks" and an undramatic storyline that defies rational analysis and awkwardly shambles to its ridiculous finish. Syd Fields would not be pleased.

How could the government suppress the truth of a virulent zombie epidemic when the reality of it would be apparent everywhere? Why would they give it more than a cursory try? In this day and age of cellphone cameras with wireless access, what could they possibly hope to accomplish for more than a day or so at best? Now, if they were covering something up, like their own culpability....but "Feeding the Masses" never explores such possibilities. Instead, it dwells on absurdity and poorly staged events to dig for laughs and/or significance, praying its audience won't notice the near total lack of production value beyond basic film-making equipment. Did anyone in this film get paid? I hope the actors did, if only for their time wasted on career blind alleys like this one; at least the techies got to rack up some legitimate work experience.

Even zombie fans will find little to gain from "Feeding the Masses." The gore is remarkably tame for no-budgeters of its rank, and there are no distinctive set pieces or memorable effects. They're all eminently forgettable, in fact. KNB has nothing to fear.

Even junk like the Aussie stillbirth "Undead" was miles ahead of "Feeding the Masses." Sorry, guys, back to the drawing boards, and take your deceptive marketing with you.@@@0 -After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.

At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.

Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.

Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral.@@@1 -Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!@@@0 -Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.@@@1 -First, a little summary. This reporter named Torch is basically trying to get out the story of a zombie outbreak and finds the military & government censoring him. Nice message, government censorship and all that, but the way they DID the movie was, well let me explain.

This movie is beyond description. The idea that somebody holds it in higher regard than anything by George Romero is justification enough for the reviewer to be committed to a mental institution. The script is atrocious on its own, like it was written by a sixth grader.As for special effects, I understand that independent films have low budgets, and some gore effects looked acceptable, but if you want a scene with fire, here's a tip: buy some nonflammable material, have an extinguisher ready, and get a fire going! Don't digitally add it in and make it look like an explosion from a Nintendo 64 game. The acting, well let's put it this way. In my summer theater program, a cold reading of the script is, compared to this, The Godfather. I won't even go into the inconsistencies. Find them yourself.

What disturbed me the most, though, was when everything was finished after shooting and editing, somebody might have said, "Okay, this looks good. Let's release it." It sends a chill down my spine to even think about it, to think somebody felt that this was good enough for DVD release. This isn't DVD quality. This isn't Sci-Fi channel quality. Hell, this isn't even film school quality. If you were to submit this in for a project at a film school, you would get an F. No, not even an F, more like an F-. I wouldn't be surprised if he would try to get you expelled.

I felt used after I saw this thing. Blockbuster and the makers of this movie have my money right now, and I'd prefer not to think of what they're doing with it. I have been the pawn of some elaborate, nefarious scheme at legalized theft, and it doesn't feel good to think that I walked right into it, looking at the back cover with pleasant memories of 28 Days Later only to find a film Ed Wood would watch and say afterwards, "I didn't much care for this." This film is the single most terrible movie I have seen. I have not seen anything by Ed Wood, but I have confidence this is worse. If you are looking for serious cinema, so much as being within ten feet of it will probably give you a bad headache. If not, I still recommend that you personally write the director and ask how he sleeps at night. However, if you are the kind of person who get a laugh out of really bad stuff then I recommend you check this out. You won't be disappointed.@@@0 -I thought this would be a sequel to the original "36th Chamber of Shaolin" but actually it's more of a light-hearted "sister" to the original. Gordon Liu still stars as a would-be hero on a quest to learn kung fu to defeat those pesky Manchus... but this time around it's lighter and more comedic. The film centres around the local dye mill, where wages are cut due to the hiring of 10 new Manchurian bosses. Liu plays "Chao", who is able to fool the mill bosses into thinking he is a shaolin monk possessing almost magical kung fu skill. But his luck runs out, he is exposed as a fraud, and he promises the mill workers that he will go to the Shaolin monastery to learn kung fu, and return to protect them.

The comedy really begins at the monastery where Chao makes several bungling attempts to get accepted. This sets up lots of really funny moments, and lots of great fight choreography. Continuing in the "36th Chamber" tradition we see all kinds of neat and interesting (and supremely hokey) training methods at the monastery as well as creative uses of wooden benches as weapons.

Also unique and of note is the blending of kung fu and the craft of bamboo scaffold building. Chao is not accepted as a student at Shaolin but is made to build bamboo scaffolding for the "10 year restoration" of the monastery. On the DVD I bought there is a special on bamboo scaffold building and the inspiration that director Lau Kar-Leung drew from it. This is a craft many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old, and in Hong Kong scaffolding is still built of bamboo even on large high-rises, though the West exclusively uses steel tubes and clamps. As a result of his scaffolding work, Chao develops a special style of kung fu... when asked what kind it is, he hilariously replies "scaffolding kung fu!!" which he first tests during a dust-up with the monastery's Abbot. In the final confrontation with the Manchus, there is a dazzling array of creative uses for bamboo poles and ties.

From a comedy perspective, I think it's one of the best of the kung fu genre. As a kung fu film in general, it also stands out... I recommend it to anyone!@@@1 -Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.

Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.

But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on "I must be high". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be "high" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.

With a production team called "Shock-o-rama" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.

If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered

Yours Truly,

The General@@@0 -I saw this movie once on late night t.v. and knew it was the best movie ever. This is one of the few Kung-Fu movies with a decent plot. The progression of the main character is seamless. The whole movie is great!@@@1 -As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.

Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!@@@0 -Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?@@@1 -This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.@@@0 -Return To The 3th Chamber is the comedic sequel to the epic 36th Chamber Of Shaolin, in which Gordon Liu played Shan Te, a young man who became a monk and awesome fighter. In this sequel Liu plays a hapless loser who has to learn kung fu after causing his friends to be beaten. He imitates the original Shan Te, tries all manner of tricks to get into Shaolin Temple to learn and eventually gets some unique skills to fight some bullying bosses. Its a classic light hearted martial arts tale, with the ace production values of the Shaw Brothers and the sure footed direction of Lui Chia Liang. The choreography is fantastic throughout, whether for fighting or slapstick comedy and Gordon Liu's performance, as are the others, particularly the sympathetic monk work perfectly for the material. The film is less epic or profound than some of the stars other work and there are certainly grander, more violent and sweeping Shaw Brothers films. But few have such a magical blend of slapstick, unique training and fighting, with a subtle yet warming tale of a useless guy making good. Full of light hearted joy, its impossible not to give this the highest score.@@@1 -This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...

The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.

The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't.@@@0 -This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!

Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!@@@1 -Honestly, who in God's name gave this movie an 8.1 rating?? I guess the people who actually made or starred in the movie were the ones who voted. Otherwise this movie sucks! This movie is nothing more than an amateur, or possibly student, film. I'm a movie fanatic, and have seen terrible movies, but there was literally nothing redeeming here. The story and acting was the worst I've ever seen. The props, including the use of toy airsoft guns with terrible special effects, where just as bad as everything else. I'm all for bad language in movies, but the F-Bomb was dropped about every third word and I think we might have a winner for the most use of the F-Bomb in any movie EVER. The movie also appears to have been filmed using cheap video cameras and not actual film. I'd expect this to get awards for an amateur movie shown only on public access stations around the country, but it doesn't belong on a DVD.

Do not buy this movie. Do not rent this movie. All I can say was that this was a terrible waste of a free movie rental coupon. This is valuable time that you will NEVER get back. Unfortunately for me, that time is lost, but it's not too late for you. If you decide to rent this movie, consider this my warning.@@@0 -I agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love this!!!@@@1 -Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.

The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.

For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.@@@0 -It all started with True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse get the club to safety. Noble Heart Horse meet Dawn & John & took them to see True Heart Bear. Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club. After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp. Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart. At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil. Than they work to together to save the Care Bears. Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone. The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart. True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic. Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy. The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy. Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy. Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.

This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.

I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see "Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)".

Who like this movie?@@@1 -A friend once asked me to read a screenplay of his that had been optioned by a movie studio. To say it was one of the most inept and insipid scripts I'd ever read would be a bold understatement. Yet I never told him this. Why? Because in a world where films like "While She Was Out" can be green-lighted and attract an Oscar- winning star like Kim Basinger, a screenplay lacking in character, content and common sense is no guarantee that it won't sell.

As so many other reviewers have pointed out, "While She Was Out" is a dreadfully under-written Woman-in-Peril film that has abused housewife Basinger hunted by four unlikely hoods on Christmas Eve. Every gripe is legitimate, from the weak dialog and bad acting to the jaw-dropping lapses of logic, but Basinger is such an interesting actress and the premise is not without promise. Here are a couple of things that struck me:

1) I don't care how much we are supposed to think her husband is a jerk, the house IS a mess with toys. Since when did it become child abuse to make kids pick up after themselves?

2) Racially diverse gangs are rare everywhere except Hollywood, where they are usually the only racially balanced groups on screen.

3) Sure the film is stupid. But so are the countless "thrillers" I've sat through where the women are portrayed as wailing, helpless victims of male sadism. Stupid or not, I found it refreshing to see a woman getting the best of her tormentors.

4) I LOVED the ending!

5) Though an earlier reviewer coined this phrase, I really DO think this film should be retitled "The Red Toolbox of Doom."@@@0 -This movie is one of the many "Kung Fu" action films made in Asia in the late '70s - early '80s, full of cheap sound effects, dubbed dialog and lightning fast martial arts action. But unlike most films of this genre it also has a decent plot and lots of great comedy. When workers of a dye factory are forced out of their jobs by Manchu bullies, they hire a con-artist (Gordon Liu) to try to scare them off. When his attempt fails miserably, he cons his way into a Shaolin temple to learn to fight for real. But instead of making him a Kung-Fu student, the Master instead orders him to build a scaffolding to cover the roofs of all 36 chambers. Well, it turns out that while he's performing these menial tasks (stacking and tying bamboo poles) that he's learning the skills to be a Kung-Fu expert! It's sort of like in Karate Kid when Mr. Miagi teaches Daniel the basics of karate by having him do routine household chores- "Wax on, wax off" et cetera. There's lots of great comedy from beginning to end, and plenty of action at the end when Gordon Liu once again faces his Manchu tormentors. "This time it's not just tricks- it's the real thing!" Liu declares, proudly thumping his chest. If you like classic Kung Fu films you don't want to miss this one!@@@1 -Feeding the Masses is just one of many recent mediocre zombie movies to be after your hard-earned dollars. Suggestion? Keep your hard-earned dollars and let's just say that good old TheatreX took one for the team on this one. Guess what the plots about? Zombies taking over. This time though, for the sake of originality (?) this film takes place in Rhode Island, and to be honest I'm not sure I've ever seen a zombie flick based in Rhode Island. A TV station, controlled by the government, is supposedly keeping up "normal" broadcasts so that any remaining citizens won't think that there's any problem in the world, that is, those that never look or go outside, anyway. I will say though that a few of the commercials broadcast by this station were probably the most amusing part of this film. There is actually somewhat of a story to this but I'm not bothering with that because after a while you'll either not care or have fallen asleep. At any rate, this has plenty of terrible acting to throw on top off all the "seen it all before" stuff that gets trotted out before the camera. Trust me, you can find plenty of other things to do with your time than watch this. 3 out of 10.@@@0 -This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.

You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up.

Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal.@@@1 -this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a "cool" DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film@@@0 -I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, "problems" develop.

It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947@@@1 -Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.

My Grade: D@@@0 -this was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again@@@1 -Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.

It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.

This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.

Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.

I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10@@@0 -Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious.@@@1 -You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection.

All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it.

Their movie career is over before it started.@@@0 -I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).

The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).

Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...@@@1 -If this movie was written directed and produced with the intention of creating a bad movie cult classic, it might (i say might) have been a hit. Have you ever sat and watched a movie that was so absolutely awful that it becomes fascinating in terms of its faults? Well this is it. Every one of the acting cast should be nominated for worst acting performance awards. It would be hard to find another film, with this kind of production budget, that contains so little of any value whatsoever. The whole thing, from the opening scenes defies logic. Dialogue is completely unbelievable and illogical. Ditto for the behaviour and general storyline of the film itself. What is really mind boggling, is that some buffoons in a boardroom actually made decisions to spend money on this piece of trash. Wow.@@@0 -Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.

The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.

Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.

In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.

My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.

By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!@@@1 -Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.

The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.

Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.

I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.

Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.@@@0 -The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.

Director Curtis ("Night Tide," "Ruby") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original "Friday the 13th" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers.@@@1 -I couldn't believe this terrible movie was actually made at all. With the worst actors you could find, the worst script written (Mark Frost & Sollace Mitchell) and by far the worst waste of time in viewing. I won't belabor the story as it's really not worth it. But I will elaborate on some of the performances and definitely the story. As to the story, it is very hard to believe that this bitty crazy schemer could actually do what she did. That in reality the wife couldn't defend herself against a little bitty of a thing. That the husband could actually find the nut case attractive at all. That the defense attorney could break every court rule there was and keep on doing it after the judge ordered the blankety blank to shut up. And the final result of the film is an insult to justice, movie codes, and the male species. The theme of this mess is let women do as they wish, kill whom they want, defend the killer and get away with it, while the guy rots in jail the innocent victim. Hard to believe that Sollace Mitchell, the director and a man, would even want to make this dribble.

As to the acting: Jordan Ladd, the killer, is awful. A loony toons, who does needlepoint during her murder trial (is this allowed in court?) She bored me to the hilt. One more look of her batting her eyes and indicating how innocent she was and I'd throw up. She's not even attractive enough for any guy to leave his wife. The husband, played on one level by Vincent Spano, just seems to look and act stupid most of the time. He was so predictable in his performance falling into the traps set for him by all the women surrounding him. The worst by far was Holland Taylor as the Defense Attourney. She over acted throughout the film and made a mockery of justice. If she would cross examine me anytime, I'd have told her to go take a hike. Everybody else in this sleazy film did their job as directed to do so.

I wish I could give this film a zero rating. However we are forced to start with 1. Too bad. Let's not have anymore painful watching films like this. Lifetime can do better then this, I know it.

This is a postscript: Made the mistake of turning this insipid movie on by mistake. As soon as I saw the bimbo Jordan Ladd I knew I'd seen it before and didn't like it or her. I not only turned the darn thing off but had to add my anger at people like Sollace Mitchell who wrote the screenplay but also directed this horrible flick. Doesen't anyone see that her/his message is that sickness pays. Being ill and going around killing people is okay with this director/writer. Totally making the male species idiots. Well, this male tells you to go stuff it somewhere painful. We're not all that stupid and will speak out to your so called movie, which in this person's mind deserves to be trashed.

And again this loser is shown. Why???? Can't you read the comments on this stupid and despicable movie? Are we constantly subjected to see the bimbo Jordan Ladd again and again? Get her off TV, films and out of sight. She's just terrible in every sense of the word. Phew!!!!@@@0 -Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("Hush…Hush…Sweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking.@@@1 -.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......

in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........

last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....

she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.

The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......

There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....@@@0 -- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.

- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.

- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.

- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any.@@@1 -i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.@@@0 -This is my favorite of the three care bears movies. Once again I liked all the songs. The big problem however as most people have pointed out was that this story contradicts the original. For those that saw the first movie recall the bears met their "cousins" who they apparently never knew about. It wasn't of course until the end that the cousins received their tummy symbols after proving how much they cared. In this story however the cousins grow up with the care bears and have tummy symbols all along. That being said this isn't a bad movie as long you keep it separate from the first. I thought the Darkheart character much more evil then the Nicholas of the first. But at the same time I felt it added a sort of balance to the sweetness of the care bears. I also liked the we care part at the end, although I know other people had mixed feelings about that scene. And of course I LOVED the songs. My favorites being Growing Up and Forever Young. The care bears movies have always had such good songs. Ten stars for a very good movie.@@@1 -I don't often give one star reviews, but the computer won't let me do negative numbers.

The opening titles tell us we're in deep water already. Although this is a low budget exploitation film, there are 17 producers credited. No. No.

At the beginning of the story abusive husband Kenneth comes home to his family in an upscale gated community. The house is a pigsty. His wife, Della (Kim Basinger) has let the children run amok all day.

OK. We're already in deep water. Ms. Basinger was 55 years old when the film came out. Uh, are these her children or grandchildren? It's Christmas Eve. Della drives to the mall, a lengthy scene that could have been cut. To bludgeon home the idea of eeeeeeevil male aggression rampant in the universe she drives past football players in full uniform playing in pouring rain on Christmas Eve. Sure. For a bonus she sees a vehicle with a slaughtered deer tied to it.

We get some actual suspense in the driving scenes, though. It's raining and traffic is bad. First we see Della try to drive and smoke at the same time. Then later Della tries to drive and talk on her cell phone at the same time, at one point turning completely around to check the cluttered back seat for the charger for the phone.

She wanders the mall, sees an old friend from college, tries to buy stuff but her credit card is declined- gosh, maybe her husband is grumpy because he's going broke, but that's too complicated for the script to follow.

In the parking lot she runs afoul of the most ludicrous gang in the history of films. One White boy (Lukas Hass watching his career go down the toilet), one Black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. Imagine a company of Up with People gone to the bad and you'll have the idea.

Although they have a gun she gives them attitude. A mall cop comes to investigate the ruckus and they shoot him in the head, firing more than once. The parking lot is crowded as can be, people everywhere, and nobody notices.

Della escapes in her car and rather than choosing a police station or well lighted safe area, she drives to a construction site, where she kills all four bad boys one at a time with simply the tools (literally) at hand.

MAJOR spoiler ahead.

She drives back home. The car poops out so she walks through the pouring rain. Checks on the children, goes downstairs, and when her husband petulantly asks what she got him at the mall shows him the gun and shoots him at point blank range.

The experience with the four punks was supposed to result in personal empowerment for Della. Instead we know that her children will probably spend Christmas in foster care or a group home, because the State will collect them while she answers to murder one charges. The four punks can be classified as justifiable homicide in self defense. The husband, different story.

I'm so glad I saw this on cable. If I'd seen it in a theater (did it get any release?) I'd have been furious. As is, I'm just sad seeing talents like Ms. Basinger and Mr. Haas waste themselves on garbage like this.

One very good thing, though. This was written and directed by Susan Montford. Ms. Montford has not gotten another writing or directing credit since passing this turd. There is justice in the world.@@@0 -A vastly underrated black comedy, the finest in a series of grand guignol movies to follow 'Baby Jane'. Reynolds and Winters are mothers of young convicted murderers (a nod to 'Compulsion') who run away to hide in Hollywood. They run a school for would-be movie tots, a bunch of hilariously untalented kids attended by awful stage moms. Debbie, in her blonde wig ('I'm a Harlow, you're more a Marion Davies' she tells Winters) leads the tots at their concert and wins a rich dad, Weaver. She also does a deliciously funny tango and, over all, gives an outstanding performance, unlike anything she'd done before. The atmosphere is a fine mix of comic and eerie. It looks wonderful with great period detail (30's). Lots of lovely swipes at Hollywood and the terrifying movie tot. Micheal MacLiammoir has a ball as the drama coach: 'Hamilton Starr', he purrs, 'two r's but prophetic nonetheless'. See it and love it.@@@1 -I happened upon this flick on a rainy Sunday, intending to tune-in to something else. Out of curiosity, I accessed the comments here, and found myself watching it to the end. I really didn't do so with intent -- this was one of those movies where you're "fascinated," and watch it for "another couple of minutes," until you finally just watch to the end. And the indictment of it in most of these comments made it more fascinating to view. The one comment where the person really liked it seems to be solely as a result of liking Ladd and Spano, and their earlier roles. But great isn't anywhere to be found anywhere here - story, performances, and particularly the absurd courtroom hi-jinks. We all know that Perry Mason (before Raymond Burr passed the 300-lb. mark), and Ben Matlock, are granted some leeway in cavorting around the courtroom, instead of being boringly confined to a lectern. And Matlock is especially granted the privilege of entering exhibits often by simply going to the jury and showing them, before the judge and prosecutor have even been informed of, or shown, them. No real-life judge or prosecutor would stand for this.

Both Perry and Ben almost always ended the proceedings by wringing a confession of the real killer. Actually Perry nearly always did this, but often Matlock would simply present overwhelming evidence of the true culprit, pronounce it "reasonable doubt," and then leave it to the cops and prosecutors to proceed against the guilty party - sometimes on-camera, sometimes presumed at the end of the show.

But that said, Holland Taylor's histrionics and the amount of leeway afforded her, in the courtroom portion of this story, made the actions of Matlock/Mason more-closely resemble the slow, often boring detail such as seen on Court TV and in real-life courtrooms.

Every character in this presentation was either insipid, unsympathetic, obnoxious, boring, improbable - or some combination of two or more of these.

The ending was the most banal, absurd, even silly conclusion possible - but again, fascinating because of this. Ladd and Spano are attractive individuals, and t.v. movies would appear their best forte - probably best in 2nd-lead (probably better if "3rd-") roles, even in this venue. Taylor could be cast as the aunt or mother of one of them. Give this one 1 star for the story/performances, and 3 additional for the fascination factor.@@@0 -From the writer of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" and "Hush .. Hush, Sweet Charlotte," this tail-end of the sixties horror cycle has some eerie and campy fun. Micheál Macliammóir does a Victor Buono-type bit, but too often the movie totters dangerously close to a bad musical ... there's a particularly awful children's recital about halfway through. Debbie taps, tangos and tricks up a lá Harlow, while Winters' religious fanatic has a lesbian edge to her. Agnes Moorehead checks in as an evangelist. Weaver has nothing to do - and even has to pay a gigolo to dance with Debbie.@@@1 -"The Deadly Look of Love" is essentially "Fatal Attraction" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.

Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.

Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time "The Deadly Look of Love" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.@@@0 -The most bizarre of the cinematic sub-genres is the so called "The Great Ladies of the Grand Guignol": camp horror films which combined over-the-top melodrama with gothic thrills and always starred by seasoned and almost forgotten actress from hollywood golden age in unflattering roles of either long suffering victims or screeching evil harpies. This genre provided them with an unusual acting showcase that allowed strut their stuff on the screen once again and win new generations of fans at expense of their glamorous images from yesterday.

"What's the matter with Helen" is the last drop of this sub-genre with stunning performances of both Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters as the troubled mothers of two convicted criminals who run away from their past to the sunny California in the 1930s to open a talent school to milk out the eagerly mothers who want their daughters to be the next Shirley Temple. In California, Debbie gets happiness, clients, tango, tap dancing and a new love interest (Dennis Weaver meanwhile Shelley gets wacko with horrible flashbacks, menacing anonymous calls, menacing strangers, menacing Agnes Moorehead as a radio evangelist, cute little rabbits (!) and an unfortunate encounter with an electric fan (ouch!).

The sloppy script (penned by Henry Farrell, the man who started all this genre with "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" along with master director Robert Aldrich, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis) is full of plot holes, red herrings and wasted opportunities that could had made this movie great: the underlying themes of twisted motherhood (with Debbie and Shelley's characters as "failed mothers" and the overbearing mommies of the child stars) and obsessive female bonding (Debbie and Shelley relationship and the fact that the few male characters of this movie are either sinister or sleazy even Dennis Weaver dream boat Texan) are wasted. Instead we get Debbie Reynolds musicals interludes and dancing tots, although fun to watch take too much screen time of what is supposedly to be a psychological chiller. But still this movie is highly entertaining. The two stars and Curtis Harrington stylish direction easily overcomes its flaws. The movie recreation of the 1930's is colorful and elegant (look at Debbie's clothes!) made with a very tight budget. The increasing atmosphere of madness and hysteria is genuinely creepy with a shocking finale that will haunt you for days. And you wouldn't easily forget that silly "Goody, goody" song that runs through the movie either. And seeing an increasingly mad Shelley Winters screw every one of Debbie Reynolds' chances at happiness is a hoot to watch!

8 out of 10.@@@1 -This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.

This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.@@@0 -I found the film quite expressive , the way the main character was lost but at the same much more clear about certain things in life than people who mocked him ( his flatmate for example ) .

he was tortured and you loved to watch him being tortured ! it had this perverted side which was frightening but we were all happy to see him come out of the misery again .

it was like a game character or pan-man through a mine-land or to enemy and we love to watch him under sniper attack or fire but then at the end we are happy to see him survive ...

.@@@1 -Absolutely putrid slasher film has not one redeeming quality. It has Camp Councellor Angela(Pamela Anderson..awful as the killer;her quips when she wastes people aren't even amusing)on the warpath slaying teenagers who act the least bit naughty or resist her pleadings for good behavior. We run the gamut of boring, clichéd killings such as the slashing to the throat to one kid looking for his Freddy clawed glove, a kid who gets a chainsaw, one girl who gets drilled, one who gets shoved into the crapper(filled with leeches), one who is roasted, etc.

It doesn't have one original idea to offer and is merely a waste of time. That is unless you want to see Valerie Hartmen's(who plays the slut Ally)tits. Most of the violence occurs off-screen so even that will not satisfy.@@@0 -In a year of pretentious muck like "Synecdoche, New York" a film born out of Charlie Kaufman's own self-indulgence, comes a film that is similarly hard to watch but about three times as important. "Frownland" is a labor of love by the crew, the actors and the filmmaker, shot over years by friends. It traces a man who cannot communicate through his thoroughly authentic, REAL Brooklyn world. The people that you see are a step beyond even the stylization of the "mumblecore" movement. They are real people, painfully trapped in their own self-contained neuroses, unwilling to change, unable. The real world to them is their own set of delusions and because this is a film about people who are so profoundly out of touch, it is very difficult to watch. It is 16mm film-making without proper light, money or any of the other factors that would make a film "slick", but its honesty can not be understated, a fact that would cause a room full of people to dismiss it and for Richard Linklater to give it an award as he did at SXSW. This does remind of films like "Naked" or the best of the "mumblecore". It is a film that is not for everyone, but one that challenges you to watch and grows on you the longer you think about it.@@@1 -this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features@@@0 -Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.@@@1 -So Angela has grown up and gotten therapy and an operation to turn her into a real life daughter, rather than the son that she was born, and now holds a job as - wait for it - a camp counselor! How appropriate, right? I know, I love it. Anyway, the first sequel to the Sleepaway Camp franchise obeys all the rules of horror sequels - more blood, more imaginative killings (which aren't imaginative, but still more so than the original), more nudity, a more elaborate plot, and generally worse than the original.

It is entertaining in the same way as the original was, in that the characters and wardrobes are so goofy and so authentically 80's that you can't help getting a good laugh. At one point, a guy asks Angela out, and she says "I'll call you," and then quickly walks away. The guy says to himself, "How is she gonna call me? I don't have a phone!" and then he sniffs his armpits, wondering what turned her off (it's the hair, dude!!).

It is a well-known fact that in 80s slasher movies, the murdered teenagers were more often than not being punished by their killer for some kind of bad behavior, usually for being too promiscuous. When I first started getting into horror movies and saw the Friday the 13th movies for the first time in the mid 90s, I didn't realize this. I learned it in a film class a year or two later and was amazed that their was some method to the madness. I was pretty impressed, not only that the movies were passing on some kind of message, albeit a morbid one, but that there was actually some thought put into it.

But not in this movie! At one point just before Angela kills one of her victims, she says "Let this be a lesson to you. Say no to drugs!" Real subtle screen writing there, guys. Then again, the dialogue is the most entertaining thing in the movie. Angela (who, by the way, went through all that therapy and those operations and all that trouble to clean up her past and reinvent herself as a normal and well-developed person and then changed her name from Angela to, umm, Angela), says at one point, "I don't like being the wicked witch of the west, but I know what happens when things get out of control." (People start getting killed...by me! HA!)

Then later, she demands that one of the counselors, Mare, make an apology, to which the girl replies, "I'd rather die!" Sorry, Mare, but you really walked into that one...

Two years ago I was a camp counselor at a sleepaway camp similar to the one portrayed in this movie (except the camp that I taught at had more than three kids to the 15 or 20 counselors and it also had rules, which the one in the movie doesn't). This made me notice the myriad of discrepancies in the movie from what camp life is really like.

That's okay though, you can hardly make a movie like this with a lot of 9 year olds running around, although there were some 10 or 11 year old kids killed in this movie. I hadn't seen that kind of thing much before.

Definitely bad taste, even for a cheesy 80s slasher movie....@@@0 -A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me.@@@1 -Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.

The original "Sleepaway Camp" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it.@@@0 -What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended.@@@1 -Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.

Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.

* out of ****.

MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.@@@0 -"A Guy Thing" may not be a classic, but it sure is a good, funny comedy. The plot focuses on Paul (Jason Lee), who wakes up the morning after his bachelor party with no memory and Becky (Julia Stiles) lying naked in his bed. Before he can figure out what happened, he rushes Becky out of his apartment because his fiance Karen (Selma Blair) is coming. After that, as you could imagine, chaos ensues.

Almost every single scene in "A Guy Thing" delivers loud laughs. The funniest moments come from when Paul imagines what could happen if he tells Karen. Selma Blair is a truly talented comedian, and the worst thing about this film is that she goes underused. Although, she turns out to be more funny than Stiles' character, who actually isn't that interesting. Of course, not every comedy is perfect.

As I said, "A Guy Thing" is no classic, but it's not bad either, 7/10.@@@1 -This movie was bad from the start. The only purpose of the movie was that Angela wanted to get a high body count. The acting was horrible. The killings were acted out very badly. Like when Ally got stuffed down that toilet I guess it was in the abandoned cabin. But when the end of the movie comes and Molly and the other guy are in the cabin you see Ally so Angela must have gone in to get her. The part that really got me was when the black girl and Angela were in the cabin and Angela took the guitar string and chocked her. One it was horrible acting and two why wouldn't you just turn around and punch the bitch?!?!? Then when Molly is getting chased by Angela if you have the neigh why not just turn around and stab her??? So stupid. This movie sucked...@@@0 -On the night of his bachelor party, Paul Coleman (Jason Lee) meets the gorgeous dancer Becky (Julia Stiles) in the bar, they drink a lot together and in the next morning, he wakes up with her on the bed. His future mother-in-law calls him and informs that his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) might be arriving in his apartment, and he desperately asks Becky to leave his place in a hurry. Sooner, he finds that her has crabs, and later, in the preparation of his wedding dinner party, he realizes that Becky is the cousin of Karen. This is the beginning of a very funny comedy, with hilarious situations. The first attraction of this movie certainly is the central trio of actresses and actor. Julia Stiles and Selma Blair, who are excellent actresses and extremely gorgeous, and Jason Lee, who is amazingly funny, have good performances. I laughed a lot along the story, but there are some scenes that are really hilarious. For example, when Paul finds Becky in his bed; when he finds her paints; his imagination in many situations; in the drugstore, trying to buy and get explanations about the crab medicine; most of the scenes of his neighbor, the minister; when Karen calls the department store; or when the police finds a suspect of assaulting Paul. I could number many other scenes, but better off the reader rent or buy this movie and have lots of fun. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil):"Louco Por Elas" ("Crazy For Them")@@@1 -This is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.

Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?

The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.

Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: "The world is a totally evil place," this movie tells you, " and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead."

And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.@@@0 -As a child I preferred the first Care Bear movie since this one seemed so dark. I always sat down and watched the first one. As I got older I learned to prefer this one. What I do think is that this film is too dark for infants, but as you get older you learn to treasure it since you understand it more, it doesn't seem as dark as it was back when you were a child.

This movie, in my opinion, is better than the first one, everything is so much deeper. It may contradict the first movie but you must ignore the first movie to watch this one. The cubs are just too adorable, I rewind that 'Flying My Colors' scene. I tend to annoy everyone by singing it.

The sound track is great! A big hand to Carol and Dean Parks. I love every song in this movie, I have downloaded them all and is all I am listening to, I'm listening to 'Our beginning' also known as 'Recalling' at the moment. I have always preferred this sound track to the first one, although I just totally love Carol Kings song in the first movie 'Care-A-Lot'.

I think the animation is great, the animation in both movies are fantastic. I was surprised when I sat down and watched it about 10 years later and saw that the animation for the time was excellent. It was really surprising.

There is not a lot of back up from other people to say that this movie is great, but it is. I do not think it is weird/strange. I think it is a wonderful movie.

Basically, this movie is about how the Care Bears came about and to defeat the Demon, Dark Heart. The end is surprising and again, beats any 'Pokemon Movie' with the Care Bears Moral issues. It leaves an effect on you. Again this movie can teach everyone at all ages about morality.@@@1 -The genre of suspense films really takes a dive in this one. The big problem is IMPLAUSABILITY. I realize that you need to create difficult situations which would cause suspense and the tense feeling of whats going to happen next, but this movie was so predictable, and is just not believable. I find that the more I watch this kind of movie, the more I am continually saying things to actors to direct them away from danger. Continually making bad decisions just borders on being plain stupid. If they took the time to make it more realistic, I might have enjoyed it a little. Having said that, you might be better off staying away from this one.@@@0 -Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.

Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, "Go get her, Tiger!" For the rest of us, I say, "See _A Guy Thing_." It's a lot of fun.

Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its "Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!" plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.

Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.

And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.

A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.

But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.

A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.

For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.

And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say "It's a Guy Thing," and leave it at that.@@@1 -No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching.@@@0 -I was literally preparing to hate this movie, so believe me when I say this film is worth seeing. Overall, the story and gags are contrived, but the film has the charm and finesse to pull them off. That gag where Jason Lee thinks he has crabs, and tries not to let his boss/future father-in-law and co-workers see him scratching himself isn't terribly intelligent, but it sent me into a frenzy of laughter. Very few of the film's gags are high-brow, but they made me laugh. As I said, the film has charm and charm can go a long way.

The characters are likable, too. I must say I wish I got to see more of James Brolin's character, since he was a hoot in the very few scenes he was in. Plus, I admire any romantic comedy that has the guts to not make the character of the wife (who serves as the obstacle in the plot) a total witch. The Selma Blair character is hardly unlikable, and there's never a scene where I thought to myself, "Why did he want to marry her in the first place?" The ending is Hollywood-ish, but it could've been much more schmaltzy.

The cast is talented. I haven't had a favorable view of most of Jason Lee's mainstream work. I just loved him so much in Kevin Smith's films that I couldn't help but feel disappointed at seeing him in these dopey roles. And he never looks comfortable in these dopey roles. Even in this movie, he doesn't look perfectly comfortable, but he contributes his own two cents and effectively handles each scene. But I still miss his work in independent films. Julia Stiles proves again why she's so damn likable. Of course, she's a very beautiful girl with a radiant smile that makes me want to faint, but she also possesses a unique charm and seems to have good personality. In other words, her beauty shows inside and out. I don't know the actresses' name, but the woman who plays the drunk granny is hilarious. Julie Hagerty also has a small part, and she's always enjoyable to watch, which makes me wish she received better roles. I loved her so much in "Airplane" and "Lost in America" that it's a shame she doesn't get the same opportunities to flaunt her skills.

Don't be put off by the horrible trailers and even more horrible box office records. This is a funny, charming film. Romantic comedies are getting so predictable nowadays that it feels like the genre itself is ready to be flushed down the toilet, so it's always to see a good one among all these bad apples.

My score: 7 (out of 10)@@@1 -Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.

Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.

Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.@@@0 -This movie starts out brisk, has some slow moments in the middle, but generally moves along well, has a few very good moments, then peters out at the end of Act 3. I was able to get to see this in LA premieres 2 times (with 2 different endings). Jason Lee is a star, but he is not tomorrows leading man. He is humorous and holds his own, but he is better served as a supporting actor. Julia Stiles does 'ok' in a comedy role, new for her, but she doesn't 'steal' this movie, the way a star of her caliber should. For an actress who has so much potential(10 Things, Save the Last Dance, O), it is hard to watch her continue to do roles that are so 'average', and then not have her take the role and run away with the movie (like Daniel Day-Lewis did in 'Gangs'). Selma Blair is a good young actress as well, and does an 'ok' job. I didn't expect an academy award performance from her, and she didn't deliver one, but, her performance was adequate. Chris Koch delivers another film that is 'above average'. Perhaps the problem lies in the script more than anything else. I 'did' like this movie! But, it is not a movie where you walk away and say...'that was great!'...This 'story' has been done so many times before and there was just not much new here. The rehearsal dinner scene was probably the best in the movie, and Larry Miller gives an incredible performance in a supporting role (he could be the best surprise of the film). If you want to go see a movie that will make you laugh a few times, and have an enjoyable evening, I can still recommend this film, but unless they have changed the ending...again...leave during the church scene, or you will surely be disappointed.@@@1 -After the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.

Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.

Bottom Line: 5/10

@@@0 -First a quick 'shut up!' to those saying this movie stinks. You can't go to every movie expecting 'Citizen Kane'. This was actually a fun movie. Jason Lee is good in everything he does. The only flaw in this movie is, I don't think there was enough chemestry between Lee and Julia Stiles. They should have dwelled more on that. Other than that, the movie is good fun. Selma Blair needs to eat something. She's worrying me. But she still looks beautiful. So yes, I recommend this movie for a date or light saturday afternoon fun. Go see.

RATING: **1/2 out of ****@@@1 -Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:

THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!

Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).

So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!

@@@0 -I think the deal with this movie is that it has about 2 minutes of really, really funny moments and it makes a very good trailer and a lot of people came in with expectations from the trailer and this time the movie doesn't live up to the trailer. It's a little more sluggish and drags a little slowly for such an exciting premise, and i think i'm seeing from the comments people having a love/hate relationship with this movie.

However, if you look at this movie for what it is and not what it could have been considering the talent of the cast, i think it's still pretty good. Julia Stiles is clearly the star, she's so giddy and carefree that set among the conformity of everyone else, she just glows and the whole audience falls in love with her along with Lee. The rest of the cast, of course, Lee's testosterone-filled coworkers, his elegant mother-in-law, his fratlike friend Jim and his bride-to-be all do an excellent job of fitting into stereotypes of conformity and boringness that make Stiles stand out in the first place.

Lee doesn't live up to his costars, i don't think, but you could view that as more that they're hard to live up to. Maybe that's one source of disappointment.

The movie itself, despite a bit of slowness and a few jokes that don't come off as funny as the writer's intended, is still pretty funny and I found a rather intelligent film. The themes of conformity and "taking the safe route" seemed to cleverly align on several layers. For example, there was the whole motif of how he would imagine scenarios but would never act on them until the last scene, or how he was listening to a radio program on the highway talking about how everyone conforms, or just how everything selma blair and julia stiles' characters said and did was echoed by those themes of one person being the safe choice and one being the risky choice.

The other good thing about the movie was that it was kind of a screwball comedy in which Jason Lee has to keep lying his way through the movie and who through dumb luck (example: the pharmacy guy turning out to be a good chef) and some cleverness on his part gets away with it for the most part.

While it wasn't as funny as i expected and there was a little bit of squandered talent, but overall it's still a good movie.@@@1 -This is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a "Trancers" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.@@@0 -What would you say about a man who was about to get married and was having his bachelor party with some of his closest friends at a Hawaiian guy bar? All smooth sailing until he takes his "bachelor hat" off. What would you say about him talking to one of the suggestive dancers and then sleeping with her? What would you say if that exact girl was the cousin of his finance? A new low, right? Well Paul Coleman, played comically by Jason Lee, leads this experience of a nauseous blur and a new low. I got to say this is one of his good leading roles. However I do believe his role in Vanilla Sky was better acted.

His finance named Karen is played by the up-and-down actress Selma Blair while Karen's character, Becky, is played by the lovely and talented Julia Stiles. Getting back to where we left off, Paul now has to deal with one arising problem to another. He gets diseases, has to deal with certain people, and has to play his lie games with stealth or any member of each of the families could get P.O'ed, including one of his relatives that hasn't had a "bowel movement" for 14 days. *Vomit* All of this leads to the long awaited wedding with one hilarious scene before it recapping all the hell that Paul and his brother had to go through.

Overall, A Guy Thing is quite funny and is all right. Sometimes the story may seem to go nowhere and you get tired of scenes here and there but it's a mixed movie. And if you're a Canadian and a fellow fan of the CTV Brett Butt sitcom, Corner Gas, you'd recognize a small role played by Fred Ewanuick, the same man who plays the hilarious Hank in the series. This movie is all right. It's another feather in Lee's hat (quite an empty hat so far, however).

My Rating: 7/10

Eliason A.@@@1 -Why review good movies when you can review "Trancers II?"

Ooh, this film is soooo lame. I can just picture the cast and crew driving around L.A. with a camcorder, hurling extras in silly monster make-up at poor, long-suffering Tim Thomerson. The stars' families actually turn up to play cameos, probably because Full Moon couldn't afford "real" extras. Lame effects, lame sets, and a script so convoluted it would take eons to untie all the knots - this must be classic Trancers!

And yet...and yet...it rules. Note this is the same thing I say about "Trancers IV." I say it because it's true. What can beat watching an old guy in a trench coat mow down zombies, then bust out with quips like, "Don't worry ladies, they're bio-degradable"? Well, lots of things could be better, but anyway this is still good stuff.

My only significant reservation is Megan Ward, who really stinks up the joint. She's a lousy rival for Helen Hunt's character - they're both young pieces of eye candy, and it would've been more effective if they actually contrasted a bit more. Oh well, you can't have everything. At least the wonderful plot device of the "long second watch" is back in place, and we've got more of Hap Ashby, the least-convincing athlete in the history of cinema (oh, wait a minute - he's got a rival in the form of David Ogden Steirs in "Creator").

I haven't seen this lately, but I do seem to remember that Martine Beswick runs away twice during the final battle. Hooray for lousy continuity! Just one of the many highlights in this fine film.@@@0 -Paul (Jason Lee) is an underachiever who just happens to be engaged to a type-A princess named Karen (Selma Blair). She chooses his clothes and his daily schedule. At his bachelor party, Paul gets a little too drunk and somehow ends up taking a pretty dancer named Becky (Julia Stiles) back to his digs. "Nothing happened", as they say, but the duo do wake up in the same bed. Suddenly Karen telephones. She's on her way to Paul's apartment. Understandably, Paul hustles Becky out of the place, although her underpants are left behind. But, there is even more fun ahead. At a family dinner at Karen's parents' home, Paul runs smack into Becky again, learning that she is Karen's cousin. Talk about some explaining to do! But, instead, Paul chooses to feign a stomach problem and hides out in the bathroom. Will Karen ever find out that Becky spent the night at Paul's place? And, what will be the consequences? I'm sorry for critics who pan movies like this. They should definitely lighten up, for this film is fresh and fun. Of course, it doesn't hurt matters that Lee is a consummate funny man, Stiles is a charming beauty or that Blair is a natural as a pretty but anal fiancée. The rest of the cast, including James Brolin and Julie Haggerty, is also quite nice. The look of the film is wonderful, as are the costumes and California settings. Best of all, the script is imaginative and inspired, creating big laughs for the audience. In short, if you want to tickle the proverbial funnybones, get this movie tonight. It may not be Academy Award material but it is absolutely guaranteed to turn a bad day into a darn good one.@@@1 -The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.

Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.

A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.

I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.

The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.

The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.@@@0 -Recap: The morning after his bachelor party Paul is woken by his mother-in-law-to-be and discovers that there is a woman sleeping beside him. Unfortunately its a waitress from the bar, and not his fiancée. And suddenly she turns up everywhere... the toll booth at the freeway and at his parent-in-laws dinner. And it is hard to keep a secret when her jealous ex-boyfriend had him followed and photographed. It is not only about saving his wedding... it is about survival.

Comments: Actually much better than expected. Not the sweet romantic comedy I expected, but something much funnier, something with a little edge. This movie wasn't afraid to take the jokes a little further. And Jason Lee does now how to deliver comedy, especially when his character is half-panicked and deep in trouble, as he is here. And he got nice support from beautiful ladies Julia Stiles and Selma Blair. And actually I thought Lochlyn Munro did a nice part as the ex.

So, more emphasis on comedy than romance, and the end result was good. I enjoyed it very much.

7/10@@@1 -Since the 70s, writer/producer/director Charles Band has been responsible for literally hundreds of science-fiction, fantasy and horror B-movies. Some of them are wonderful examples of how to use a tiny budget to maximum effect; many of them are pretty bad. Trancers (1985) was one of those rare gems.

A Terminator style tale of time-travel and action, Trancers saw Tim Thomerson playing Jack Deth, a future cop given the task of tracking down bad-guy Whistler, who travels into the past by inhabiting the body of an ancestor. Whistler is capable of controlling other humans with his psychic powers, converting them into obedient zombies (the 'trancers' of the title), and attempts to alter the course of history by killing off the ancestors of the leaders of the future. Jack follows him to 1985, determined to stop him.

In this 1991 sequel, Jack is still living in 1985. Having destroyed Whistler, he has settled down and married Leena (Helen Hunt), the young woman who helped him succeed in the first movie. But, for Jack, things don't stay calm for long, and trouble appears in the form of Whistler's brother, E.D. Wardo, who is trying to build a trancer army.

Trancers II lacks the charm and simplicity of the original and is a huge disappointment considering how good the original was. The story is difficult to pick up if you haven't seen the first film (or at least not for a long while), and there is loads of unimpressive action and a few poor special effects. Gone is the inventiveness and wit that made Trancers so much fun; instead we get some cheesy one-liners and a script that feels like it was written on-the-fly.

About the only reason I can give for recommending this film to fans of the genre is the cast, which boasts many names that will be familiar to followers of sci-fi and horror movies: Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Richard Lynch, Martine Beswicke. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to be having an 'off day' whilst filming Trancers II, and performances are mediocre at best.

The Trancers series obviously has its fans; four further sequels have since been churned out. Unless the quality has taken up massive upward swing, I can't imagine them being any good.@@@0 -I think this movie got a low rating because it got judged by it's worst moments. There is a diarrhea joke and an embarrassing nut-scratching scene, but apart from that there are actually quite a few moments that made me laugh out loud. Jason Lee is performing some wonderfully subtle comedy in this movie and Julia Stiles manages to be pretty damn funny herself. Apart from that this movie behaves like most romantic comedies, after about 40 minutes into it you know how it is going to end. (Which is better than most of them, where you already know after +/- 5 minutes). Anyway, better movies to watch but definitely not the worst pick...Cheers@@@1 -Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.@@@0 -I happened to watch this movie by chance some days ago while flipping channels. My expectations were not very high but it was an interesting movie.In 'A Guy Thing', Jason Lee plays Paul, a straight-laced, Seattle-based fellow who is about to marry his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) and settle down to an unchallenging life of middle-class domesticity. We first meet Paul at his bachelor party, where he professes no desire to engage in any of the normal bachelor party type activities his (surprisingly few) buddies encourage, in case he's a bit naughty and gets into hot bother with his soon to be trouble and strife. Of course, the next thing Paul knows, it's the morning after the night before, he's in bed with a naked hula dancer, and his mother-in-law phones to inform him that Karen is on her way over. Oh, and the hula dancer is Karen's cousin Becky (Julia Stiles).

From this small acorn of potential trouble grows a mighty oak of frenetic misfortune, as Paul scrabbles from misadventure to misadventure, trying to cover up what he's done whilst keeping up the appearance of being a dutiful, family-oriented good guy, who's super-excited about his forthcoming nuptials. His efforts to ensure Karen remains none the wiser about any potential wrong-doing on his part ironically forces Paul closer and closer to the fun-loving Becky, forcing him to question whether he really wants the life that seems to have been mapped out for him. The movie contains the right mix of comedy and romance. Definitely worth a watch.@@@1 -Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop.@@@0 -I was worried that my daughter might get the wrong idea. I think the "Dark-Heart" character is a little on the rough side and I don't like the way he shape-shifts into a "mean" frog, fox, boy… I was wrong, This movie was made for my kid, not for me. She "gets it" when it went over (under?) my head. Of course I don't "get it". This isn't one of the NEW kids movies that adults will ALSO enjoy. This is straight for the young ones, and the crew knew what they were doing. There isn't any political junk ether. There's no magic key that will save the world from ourselves, nobody has the right to access excess, and everyone isn't happy all the time. And as a side benefit, nobody DIES! –russwill.@@@1 -Its Christmas Eve and lazy and submissive housewife Della (Kim Basinger) receives some violent threats from her troubled and abusive husband. Leaving her twin children in bed she ventures off into the night for one last shopping spree at the local mall. Its busy there and finding a parking space is nigh on impossible, Della takes umbrage at one motorist who parks in two spaces, she leaves them a note saying as much. Returning to her car after visiting the shops she is confronted by some yobs, Yup the owners of the car she left a note on, they are very angry and want some fun with her, a kindly security guard steps into assist her, but things get out of hand and the guard is shot, Della flees with the now murderous yobs in hot pursuit, they shoot at her, she looses control of her car and crashes, quickly grabbing her toolbox from the trunk, she hides in a deserted building site, but is soon caught, just before they try to rape and kill her, from her magical toolbox she produces a wrench, wounding their leader "Chuckie", she manages to escape again into the nearby woods, in the fracas one of the gang is killed, it just happens to be the black guy Here the night gets worse for all involved as a deadly game of cat and mouse ensues. A similar plot line to Eden Lake drew me to this, but that is where the comparisons end. This is a brainless and dumb film, shockingly scripted and horribly acted by all involved, the doe eyed Disney-esquire twin kids are horrible to watch, but its Lukas Haas as Chuckie, that must take the plaudits in the bad acting department, although he is given a run for his money by the equally awful husband. As a film its plot line is completely telegraphed all the way through, even in the set up early on Della's cell phone goes dead and then in the shops her credit card has been cancelled by her hubby and she has no cash and its Christmas Eve, now where could they be going with this I wonder??? The only surprising part of this $hit is when after killing all the clichéd bad guys with the contents of her magic toolbox, she demands Chuckie to f@ck her, if my jaw had not already been on the floor at this films awfulness, it would surely have dropped and smashed on the floor. even the ending is messed up, all the feminist grannies wanting their pound of flesh are left utterly disappointed.. I didn't think I could be further disappointed, but then I saw that Guillermo del Toro produced this dreck@@@0 -In my opinion, A GUY THING is a hilarious, witty, sexy, romantic, and totally beautiful chick flick that guys will also enjoy. I thought that Jason Lee and Julia Stiles dazzled as a bewildered groom-to-be and his soon-to-be sexy cousin-in-law. If you ask me, they lit up the screen like magic. You can also feel their chemistry between them. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the performances were top grade, the direction was flawless, the production design was nice, the casting was perfect, and the costumes were perfectly designed. In conclusion, to anyone who's a fan of Jason Lee or Julia Stiles, I recommend this movie. You're in for lots of laughs and thrills, so, go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.@@@1 -This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.

The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.

The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.

Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.

Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.

That's being pretty generous, I'd say.@@@0 -"The Lady from Shanghai" is well known as one of Hollywood's most troubled productions. Welles' original cut was taken away by the producers and cut to ribbons. This made the already muddled mystery story even more difficult to keep track of. They post dubbed a good amount of his dialog because of the density of the Irish accent, and the dubbing is all too apparent and poorly done. Most disastrous of all, Welles and his on screen and real life leading lady Rita Hayworth were falling apart in their relationship, and their tumultuous chemistry comes through on screen.

Fortunately, this is all overcome by just how fantastic Orson Welles' direction is. He makes the film incredibly stylish and atmospheric - every scene just seems to be breathing down your back from the screen. Also, the characters and scenes are so bizarre they border on dreamlike and surreal. This sense of weirdness elevates scenes that are often found in these films, such as the courtroom sequences in the middle. I typically find courtroom dramas a bore, but Welles' direction and quirky touches make them just as fascinating as everything else. The ending at the carnival reminds one of David Lynch almost.

The acting here is also very good. Despite their failing relationship, Welles and Hayworth both give decent performances - their interactions however are just a bit lacking. Everyone else is superb and delightful to watch though, especially Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. "The Lady from Shanghai" obviously has its problems, but its worth watching just to see one of cinema's masters at his finest. (8/10)@@@1 -Unfortunately there was not a 0 for a rating or else I would've chosen it. This movie lacks the star power that the original movie had in such abundance. Carol Burnett, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Bernadette Peters, Edward Hermann, the innocence of newcomer Aileen Quinn, and expert directing from seasoned pro John Huston (father of actress Angelica Huston)is what made this film so charming. Even the 1999 remake with Kathy Bates, Victor Garber, Alan Cumming, and Kristin Chenoweth had more to offer than this sorry excuse for a sequel. Before she did this movie all Ashley Johnson was known for was her role as little Chrissie Seaver on the prime time show Growing Pains. She had a few bit parts in movies but I don't know who thought she had talent enough to carry a movie on her own. And adding Joan Collins as Lady Edwina Hogbottom, ridiculous! They couldn't get good enough actors to play the major roles like Daddy Warbucks, Miss Hannigan, and Annie but they will sign Joan Collins to play some British lady? It doesn't surprise me that this movie was as bad as it was. The critics were right to have not agreed with this movie, even if it was only made for TV, it was a poor sequel to an otherwise lovable movie.@@@0 -I did no research on the film prior to my first viewing of it because it was part of a Welles box set I had recently purchased. A box set I chiefly got because I wanted to own A Man For All Seasons and to also re-evaluate Waterloo. So I stick Orson and Rita in the player and I'm treated to class and confusion in equal measure.

On the surface the story seemed a simple one, man meets gorgeous woman and saves her from a couple of thugs, they click straight away and man gets offer of work on a cruise with woman and her famous lawyer husband, and then.............

..well it becomes murder mystery of plotted devilment and much shenanigans. Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles} himself doesn't really know what is going on, he is as confused as the viewer is, and that is wonderful to watch as he is pulled all over the place by pretty much everyone in the film. Obviously being pulled by the heart strings by a femme fatale of such beauty as Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth} has its moments, but you just know that things are going to go pear shaped.

So many wonderful things in the film, it has Welles visual style all over it, see a scene in an aquarium that is marvellous and the ending sequences in a fun house is majestic on the eye. The narration from O'Hara is joyously self mocking, and we get good light relief by way of a court case with Everett Sloane considerably lighting up proceedings.

Yet the film is an oddity, and in fact it's a choppy viewing experience, because {as I was to find out after} studio bosses cut the film by pretty much a whole hour, and that is just not only frustrating to us the viewer, but unfair on Welles' vision. I'm positive that a full original cut of this film would have been lauded and revered wholesale, as it is tho, we have a very good and intriguing film, one that sadly only hints at greatness, but remains a fiendishly engrossing film that I'm glad I own to revisit further. 8.5/10@@@1 -Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original@@@0 -One reviewer notes that it does not seem to matter what Welles actually says or does, he moves you. I concur. He was and remains a unique force in film. More than a triple threat who could act, write and direct, he had a genius uniquely suited to film. One can consider whether in an earlier age he would have been a painter. This film certainly reinforces that impression. A musician, a theatre actor, an heir to Shakespeare? hard to tell but I am very grateful that his time cam with film and he have him captured on film. I like the accent. I like the face, the size, the style, the mind and the games. I love all of his movies and wish there were more. I particularly love how other actors interacted with him on film. Many were never better or at least somehow different with him because he was o firmly there. Even towards the end when his beauty was ruined, perhaps by his own intent, he was impossible to ignore and he made every scene he was in. Rita was a gorgeous blonde -- a Lana Turner look alike but perhaps even lovelier and even then the eye goes to Welles and one wishes for another minute, another film, another hour in his company. That is why we all wish we could come upon the lost scraps cut from his films because we know, we all know, that there is not part of him not worthy of our time. Watch it and be grateful for the chance.@@@1 -Christ. A sequel to one of the most cloying films of all time, this at least has the decency to leave out the songs (bar a reprise of the unbearable "Tomorrow") but does continue the tradition of being nauseating and unfunny. This time, Annie and her friends head off to London and get caught up in Joan Collins's plot to blow up Buckingham Palace or some such shite. The movie has a bizarrely sycophantic attitude towards its eponymous character at odds with how irritating she is: every time the little bugger squeals "Leapin' lizards!" I could feel my teeth grinding themselves down into powder. Drearily photographed, slushy and plodding, the movie has only one memorable line ("Unhand me, you stupid genius!") and the fact that it's not the original to recommend it.@@@0 -In a lot of his films (Citizen Kane, Confidential Report, Touch of evil) Orson Welles gave him the role of an exuberant men. In "The Lady from Shanghai" it's the only time I see him holding the role of the victim. The role of the culprit, he gave it to Rita Hayworth, I guess it's because he was in love with her. Therefore, it's an interesting film. But I find the story excellent too. The direction is genius, as usual with Welles : two scenes are particularly brilliant: the one in the aquarium and the final one with the mirrors. This film is brilliant.(10/10)@@@1 -Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese@@@0 -THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is proof that the great genius Orson Welles could direct a "mainstream" movie if he wanted to. By comparison to his other, more artistic works, this film has only a moderate amount of craftiness, and almost no esoteric elements.

The exception being, of course, the final scene in the hall of mirrors, widely agreed to be one of the greatest scenes in the history of film. It alone is worth the cost of a rental.

The sweet surprise was the superb acting by the beautiful Rita Hayworth. Her acting during the beginning and middle of the film is so excellent, she made the other actors appear as caricatures instead of characters. Even the great Mr. Welles.@@@1 -What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful.

@@@0 -It is not as great a film as many people believe (including my late aunt, who said it was her favorite movie). But due to the better sections of this film noir, particularly that justifiably famous "fun house" finale, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI has gained a position of importance beyond it's actual worth as a key to the saga of Orson Welles' failure to conquer Hollywood.

By 1946 Welles' position as a Hollywood figure was mixed. CITIZEN KANE was not recognized as the great movie it has since been seen as due to the way it was attacked by the Hearst press and by Hollywood insiders themselves. Welles' attempt at total control (direction and production and acting) of his movies seemed to threaten the whole system. His best job in this period was as Edward Rochester in JANE EYRE, supposedly shot by Robert Stevenson, but actually shot in large measure (with Stevenson's blessing) by Welles. But the credit went to Stevenson. Only THE STRANGER, a film benefiting from a postwar interest in fleeing Nazi war criminals, made a profit. For five years in Hollywood it was barely a great record.

Welles returned to Broadway in 1946, hoping to recapture his critical abilities by his production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. But despite the assistance Mike Todd, and Cole Porter composing the score, the musical was a failure. His failure occurred just at the same time that his wife, Rita Hayworth, was on the rise with her portrayal of GILDA. So the marriage was going on the rocks as well.

Welles had to make money - his Broadway production had led to his personal bankruptcy. He sold his interest in the possible movie rights to AROUND THE WORLD to Todd (which he would eventually rue), and he also sold the idea of a film about the career of Henri Desire Landru to Charlie Chaplin, who was supposed to be directed in it (and who turned it into MONSIEUR VERDOUX).

The story goes that Welles, with a $10,000.00 tax bill to worry about, called Cohn and offered to do a film with Rita for a down payment. Cohn was willing to do so, but naturally asked what the film was. It was a wise question. Welles was on a pay phone in New York in a pharmacy that had a book department. He grabbed a book with the title THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and raved that it was a great thriller. Somehow Welles convinced the normally astute Cohn that Welles knew what he was talking about. Cohn said he'd look into getting the rights, and sent Welles his down-payment of $10,000.00. After Cohn hung up Welles bought the book and read it - and found it was really pretty bad. He spent time rewriting a treatment and screenplay that would build up Rita's character of Elsa Bannister.

Certainly it has a curious plot development. Michael O'Hara is a seaman/longshoreman. He rescues Elsa Bannister, when she is apparently attacked by gangsters in a park in San Francisco. Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) a crippled criminal lawyer with a great reputation. She convinces him to hire Michael as the skipper of their yacht. The cruise also contains Bannister's sinister partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders) and one Sidney Broome (Ted De Corsia) who turns out to be a detective hired by Bannister to watch Elsa. When they can Michael and Elsa try to find time together, but Broome or Grisby keeps showing up.

Grisby makes Michael an offer - he wants (for reasons connected to his so-called fatalistic view of modern society) to drop out of it, pretending to be dead. According to Grisby (the plot becomes murky here) he can still collect his life insurance (although dead?) and use it to run off to the South Seas. He will pay Michael $10,000.00 if he will pretend to shoot Grisby. This includes actually signing a document admitting to the murder (Michael does not realize that such an admission would wipe out the need to produce a corpse if all the other evidence suggests that Grisby is probably dead).

Of course Grisby is killed, and Michael is arrested for that, and for the murder of Broome (shot with Michael's gun). Michael is tried with Bannister defending him, and discovers that the latter is doing a second rate job because he wants Michael to be convicted. Michael is convinced that Bannister is the actual murderer, and manages to escape just before the jury verdict. He is knocked out and deposited in a deserted carnival, and this leads to the famous "fun house" sequence and the conclusion of the film.

It's a terribly confusing movie (as I have had commented on). That does not mean it's not worth seeing - visually it is striking. Witness the fight between Michael and the police in the trial judge's quarters, where he knocks the bailiff into the judge's bookcase, shattering glass. Or the clever use of photography to capture Hayworth diving from a rock, reflected on the lecherous Grisby's binoculars.

The acting is pretty good, in particular Sloane (possibly that fine actor's best film role). Glenn Anders was a leading Broadway performer. He rarely made movies before THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and his slimy Grisby is unforgettable. Also Ted De Corsia does very nicely with Broome - a detective who is really looking for his own interests, to his own cost.

As for Hayworth, she turns in a performance that was unlike most of what she had done before (BLOOD AND SAND, TALES OF MANHATTAN, and THE STRAWBERRY BLOND are exceptions), and is a memorable siren. Welles' O'Hara is a very unusual character for the actor - a likable but naive man who learns the hard way not to believe what he secretly wants to believe. It's not KANE, AMBERSOMS, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL, or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but it is a good film for all that.@@@1 -This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.

DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.

Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.

Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.

Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.

The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.

I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it.@@@0 -Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.

Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.

Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.

Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something.@@@1 -Worst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better.

@@@0 -Pure Orson Welles genius makes this one of the greatest of movies. Welles is drawn into a murder conspiracy only to be set up as the fall guy, which is what he refers to with the sarcastic comment "big dummy that I am." Plot is so complex that I still don't know whether the victim knew that his life was about to be lost. The shootout scene in the carnival hall of mirrors is one of the most amazing ever filmed. That scene alone is worth the price of admission. This is the only time that Rita Hayworth ever played a complex yet believable character. No one but Welles would have had the nerve to cut her hair and dye it brassy blond. No one should miss this picture.@@@1 -While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".

For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.

The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)

The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.

All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together.@@@0 -Despite loving Rita Hayworth, finding the final few sequences of the film intriguing and being able to appreciate some of the subtler "symbolic" aspects of the cinematography, The Lady from Shanghai didn't quite work for me. I had a problem with most of the performances, the script and the overall structure. And in a film that's mostly people talking with each other in various situations, that's quite a problem. The Lady from Shanghai ended up at a very low "C", or a 7, for me.

The Lady from Shanghai is really all about Orson Welles' character, Michael O'Hara. O'Hara sees Elsa "Rosalie" Bannister (Rita Hayworth) in Central Park on a carriage ride and hits on her. Later, he saves her from a mugging and she takes a shine to him. O'Hara is a seaman from Ireland and the globetrotting Elsa happens to own a yacht with her husband, Arthur (Everett Sloane), a very famous and powerful California defense attorney. They talk O'Hara into working for them, despite his initial reservations--it seems to him, and to the audience, that Elsa is just looking for someone to have an affair with, and O'Hara doesn't want to get involved.

Shortly after going to work on their yacht, a strange man, George Grisby (Glenn Anders), who says he's Arthur's partner, shows up at a port of call and begins stirring up trouble. Eventually, Grisby asks O'Hara to enter into a very dubious and dangerous scheme. Foolishly, O'Hara agrees. Naturally it gets him into quite a bit of trouble, and eventually, a number of mysteries are revealed.

Maybe my problems with the film lie in the fact that, so far, I'm not exactly a huge fan of Orson Welles, and here, he produces, writes, directs and consumes most of the screen time. I haven't seen anywhere near the majority of Welles' work yet, but I've tended to like his later films better, when he became a bit more campy and performance-arty. I love F for Fake (Vérités et mensonges, 1974) for example, and I even kind of like his performance in Casino Royale (1967), when he bizarrely insisted on being allowed to do magic tricks at a baccarat table, but Citizen Kane (1941) never did much for me, despite giving it 3 or 4 chances over the years (including about one year ago; my rating was a low 7--the same as my current score for The Lady from Shanghai).

Welles' performance and the dialogue he's written for himself come across as affected and pretentious to me. He's a bit of a motormouth, a bit of a boor, and a bit monotone--he tends to sound like he's reading. His performance reminded me of what I've seen of Welles' version of Moby Dick (listed on IMDb as 1999, but "completed" in 1971, it can also be seen in Orson Welles: The One-Man Band (1995)), where he seems to be just reading to the camera and believing that he's inherently, sublimely dramatic. I'm also someone who almost never complains about accents, but somehow Welles manages to make his Irish accent sound affected and pretentious to me, too.

As for the other performances, I can only say I thought Hayworth did an excellent job. Of course she's gorgeous, which doesn't hurt. Plenty of eye candy here. Like Welles, Sloane also seemed a bit affected and pretentious to me--I never quite bought his character, his handicap and so on, and Anders is simply bizarre where bizarre doesn't seem to fit. Welles often shoots him in close-up and Anders almost always has some over-exaggerated, manic expression on his sweaty face.

Structurally, The Lady from Shanghai is very uneven. The first 50 minutes or so are extremely bland and soap-operatic, although the soap opera ministrations tend to be approached from a tortuous oblique. Once Grisby introduces his scheme, things pick up a bit, and mostly improve as we near the end. But by the time The Lady from Shanghai becomes a crime/mystery film, it's too little too late, and it quickly turns into a courtroom drama before the sudden, thrilling ending that comes almost out of nowhere and is over far too quickly for its relative excellence.

The ending is more action-oriented, less-dialogue heavy, more varied and exotic in settings, and at times, fairly abstract. Welles handles that combination of material skillfully as a director. If The Lady from Shanghai would have been a largely a combination of the crime/mystery stuff and the arty ending, it could have easily been at least a 9. The final scenes are easily 10s, as Welles shifts from a Hitchcockian suspense scene in a San Francisco Chinese opera house to another suspense scene in a Chinese amusement park. The funhouse climax uses cinematography that was experimental for its time. It's well integrated with the script, as it allows a complex resolution and fuels a lot of symbolism.

The cinematography throughout is interesting, even if it usually can't make up for the problems in the foreground. Welles blocks scenes with skill. There are lots of attractively filmed settings, from Central Park to Acapulco to various San Francisco locations. Welles effectively creates symbolic backdrops for his action, from the emphasized heights and precipitous drops of Acapulco to the maze-like Caribbean streets, the beautifully framed and silhouetted shots of the San Francisco Aquarium, and so on. The romance material, for which the Aquarium serves as one backdrop, is interestingly tempered with a kind of unease throughout the film, but on the other hand, that makes the romance never quite work as romance.

Surely serious Welles fans will appreciate The Lady from Shanghai much more than I did, and of course it's worth a watch if you love Rita Hayworth. The Lady from Shanghai isn't exactly a terrible film, in my view, but it's dangerously close to not "passing". Proceed with caution.@@@1 -I'm surprised this movie is rated so highly, although if I were to go with typical grade scale 71 is a c- or d so perhaps that's all right but this movie was just a typical thriller except boringly slow and unrealistic. Not that a typical thriller is realistic but this one seemed to be trying to, and yet the woman who got rapped didn't press charges because she didn't want to be cross examined in a court even though she would be putting the man who broke her arm beat the crap out of her and raped her away for life not but also protecting the lawyer whom she had feelings for and his family not just random people she didn't even know. There were other similar problems with the movie which would have been all right if there was some kind of moral to take away from the movie but the few moral questions like whether it was right to try to kill/beat Kady before he did anything illegal were presented a little one sided since Kady ended up being just a crazed bastard bent on revenge so sure the lawyer was justified in protecting his family since waiting for Kady to actually rape his daughter so he could do something legally about it would be a bit absurd. So now I've just waisted more of my life for this stupid movie so please don't see it so at least your life won't be waisted and that way my 2 1/2 hours or so has meant something.@@@0 -This cartoon was strange, but the story actually had a little more depth and emotion to it than other cartoon movies. We have a girl at a camp with low self esteem and hardly any other friends, except a brother and sister who are just a miserable as she is. She reaches the ultimate low point and when the opportunity arises she literally makes a pact with a devil-like demon. I found this film to be very true to life and just when things couldn't be worse, the girl sees what she's done, she feels remorse and then changes and then she helps this dark, mystical creature learn the human quality of love. The twins improve too, by helping the little bears and then they get a sense of self worth too. A very positive message for children, though some elements of the film was strange, it was and still is a rather enjoyable film. The music from Stephen Bishop (Tootsie songs) made the film even better@@@1 -So this is what actress Kim Basinger has succumbed to? Mmm… to tell the truth the film's title is something quite eye grabbing to getting your interest and plot outline reads so basic, but simplicity can have its strengths. Anyhow by the end of 'While She Was Out' I was left feeling rather indifferent. Not the worse (despite being engulfed by negatives), but there's easily way better in what is an causally lukewarm, but compact and unbalanced late-night survival fable of a feeble suburban housewife stranded in the woods trying to fight for her life after she witnessed the death of a rent a cop that came to her aid, when she provoked an ugly exchange with some punks in a shopping car park.

The problem here falls on the misguidedly erratic and foreseeable material (taken from a short story), along with the very variable performances. The flimsy script was poorly thought-out (which isn't so good when your plot has a slight structure to hang off), so many wretched inclusions and dubious actions just go on to find its way in this endless chain of events. As for the bunch of stereotypical goons (led by an unconvincing Lukas Hass as a loose canon) terrorizing Basinger, well they were less than threatening, but hopelessly clueless. Watching Basinger scrounging around in the dank wilderness with a red tool box in her hand (don't ask me why?) knocking off these wannabe punks one by one became ridiculous because it didn't elicit tension or emotion… but instead clumsy jolts that were absurdly daft because of the stupidity of the lead up. Basinger's performance is stout-like, but doesn't craft much empathy. Craig Sheffer shows up as her hot-headed husband. Strangely I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen… thinking to myself that red toolbox is hypnotic (why would she be constantly carrying it) and what tool was she going to use to dispatch the next thug… her choices were quite disappointing. Watching her transformation through the traumatic situation when things are finally turned around is rather empty, due to its unsure tone and the ending is something you could see miles ahead.

Susan Montford's soberly slick direction lacks cohesion and energy, as it pretty much chugs along. I liked the opening credits though, with its hauntingly sullen score (which is the most effective thing throughout the feature) and polished photography.

No great shakes. Doesn't ask much of your time, but I wouldn't care to see it again. However with the inclusion of a Joy Division song, it made me grab a couple of their albums for a listen.@@@0 -It's very hard to say just what was going on with "The Lady from Shanghai" and what the film could have been without studio interference. Orson Welles' prime interest in film at this point was to raise money for his theater; indeed, funding his own projects is what drove him to seek out acting jobs. He made "Lady from Shanghai" for his soon to be ex-wife, Rita Hayworth. Harry Cohn was fearful for Rita's image and held back the release of this movie for one year.

The plot concerns an Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara, who falls in love with Else (Hayworth, stunning with short blond hair). Her husband is a well known criminal attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) who is as crippled on the inside as he is out. He hires O'Hara to work on his yacht, and there O'Hara is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of murder and deceit.

"The Lady from Shanghai" moves at a snail's pace, though I agree with one of the posters that films today are criticized for taking time to build a plot. Still, this movie drags. The scene in the fun house is fantastic - Welles wanted it without music, though, and I believe the studio cut it down. It's a shame. The photography throughout is stunning, atmospheric, bold, and very stylish.

Welles was an excellent actor, handsome in his youth, charismatic and possessing a magnificent voice and technique, but in many films, it's almost as if he doesn't trust himself or doesn't take the time to develop a character. Instead he relies on externals such as accents and fake noses. One of the only times he didn't do this was "Tomorrow is Forever," where the director gets an excellent, deeply felt performance out of him. Contrast that with "Compulsion" where he shows he is a master of pure technical acting as he phones in his performance. Here Welles is doing quadruple duty - as director, star, co-writer and narrator. Sporting a completely unnecessary accent and looking intense was a fast way to a characterization. Nevertheless, he is always compelling.

The supporting players are excellent, including Sloan and Glenn Anders. Hayworth, gorgeous and soft-voiced (her singing was again dubbed by Anita Ellis) is as usual a complete goddess and one of the great screen presences. What a sad life for such a vibrant beauty.

Any film that Orson Welles directed is worth seeing, and "The Lady from Shanghai" is no exception. But this one leaves the viewer frustrated, as does "The Magnificent Ambersons" - as does any work that Welles did within the studio system. He was a great artist who should have been given a freer reign; he wasn't. He was a strange dichotomy - he needed more freedom, but as is evidenced by some of his later work, he needed the structure of the studio. Alas, he couldn't have both.@@@1 -One of Scorsese's worst. An average thriller; the only thing to recommend it is De Niro playing the psycho. The finale is typically of this genre i.e. over-the-top, with yet another almost invincible, immune-to-pain villain. I didn't like the 60s original, and this version wasn't much of an improvement on it. I have no idea why Scorsese wasted his time on a remake. Then again, considering how bad his recent movies have been (I'm referring to his dull Buddhist movie and all the ones with his new favourite actress, the blond girl Di Caprio) this isn't even that bad by comparison. And considering Spielberg wanted to do the remake... could have been far worse.@@@0 -The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminent director, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many a moon. It's a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period when more conventional films of this type were quite popular, and it concerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls in with a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with a brainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows, with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan's law partner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving odd speeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that the man is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and all sorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at this point the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes off the deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliant directorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give the movie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself, possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at all times incomprehensible mess.

It's hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film aside from maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle for his wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does with Welles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she is also cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beauty her most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, a quality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself is strangely unappealing and hammy at O'Hara, the (presumably) easygoing sailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easy man to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later Sean Connery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Welles does not. The most interesting performance in the movie is Glenn Anders' as Grisby, Sloan's loony, treacherous law partner. Anders works wonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while his scenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but for all this he manages to make Grisby's derangement palpable and disturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyant Method actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.

There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Welles trying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tended to make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with his world view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have an answer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. He had reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system he despised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn't exactly a nose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that it is, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers) expressing Welles' opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That he presented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself was certainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place for long. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigious film (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from which he never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speak its name in this film, which is to say Welles' personal failure in not getting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and his inability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of him turning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could not forestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himself in the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack of self-knowledge on Welles' part. He was much more of an inside player than he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of the worldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much.@@@1 -I really don't want to compare Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to the classic 1962 Cape Fear film, but I can't help it. Not only am I a huge fan of the Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck starred Cape Fear, but when Scorsese includes scenes right out of the previous film (Cady taking the keys out of the ignition, dog dying) and even using Bernard Herrmann's score throughout the entire film, he's not giving me a lot of opportunities to not make a comparison as I can't help but think of the classic Cape Fear nearly every scene. When comparing Scorsese's version of Cape Fear to the classic version, the remake comes out destroyed by the classic; but even when taking the film by itself, it's still bad.

Now Scorsese and screenwriter Wesley Strick didn't just remake the 1962 Cape Fear scene for scene, they tried to do things differently. Unfortunately this is one of the film's problems. Gone is the original crazy and animal-like Max Cady who is out for personal revenge, the Max Cady in the 1991 version is a religious fanatic out to "save" Sam Bowden and who is in touch with his feminine side (his words, not mine). Also gone is the stand-up and strong Sam Bowden seen in the classic Cape Fear film, the Sam found in the 1991 remake is very goofy, Magoo, distrustful, and very unlikable. Even Mrs. Bowden is a completely different character - she's crazier than Max Cady is! The overall story has also been changed around - Sam didn't testify against Cady in court to put him in jail like in the classic version, Sam is now Cady's ex-lawyer who Cady suspects of not doing all he could to keep him out of jail and is out to "save" him.

The overall story has been changed, and I don't hold too much against it, but the overall script is also weak all around. Other sub-plots have been thrown into the mix that not only distract from the bigger picture, they are also just poorly written. The film also includes a few frankly absurd scenes and is filled with apathetic and even ridiculous lines that you can't take the least bit seriously. These aspects take away from the dangerous and thrilling nature that the film is supposed to have, but they have some help in this department as well.

Now the classic version of Cape Fear was extraordinarily filmed with brilliant lighting and a powerfully effective suggestive subtlety combined with a barefaced brutality that delivered thrills when the film called for it and a sense of danger throughout its entirety. However, Scorsese is unable to do any of this in his Cape Fear, giving the film a cookie-cutter early 1990s look, no sense of danger, no suspenseful scenes, and little style (unless you count animating fire and the skyline style). Yeah, there is some gruesome violence and some effort was put in to make this Cape Fear bigger than the original, but it ends up empty and all shock but no awe.

If all that wasn't enough, the acting isn't great either. Robert De Niro (being somehow nominated for an Academy Award for his performance) starts off alright as Max Cady, but he gets progressively worse until he begins to get nothing but laughs instead of scares by the end of the film. The opposite thing happens for Jessica Lange and her performance of Mrs. Bowden, going from overacting for most of the film to giving a convincing display of fear and desperation towards the end. As Sam Bowden, Nick Nolte stays the same throughout the whole film: beige. Juliette Lewis (who also reeled in an Academy Award nomination) is decent enough in her role as Danielle Bowden, but she's called upon to play a real stupid character and it's hard to really like what we see on screen from her.

This film seems to be often counted as one of the few good remakes, and I can't figure out why. I wanted to like it; I really did - I mean, if there's going to be a remake of Cape Fear I'd rather like that one too - but I just couldn't. Containing nothing to be great on its own and being crushed by the unavoidable comparison to the original Cape Fear, I found Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear to be a very bad film indeed. The best things about the film are Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in their supporting roles - go figure.@@@0 -This 1947 film stars and was directed and written by Orson Welles (with a funky Irish accent) and also stars the gorgeous Rita Hayworth with less appealing short blonde hair. So, I've hung out with Orson before in Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane and the Third Man etc. but this was my first Rita Hayworth interaction. Our first meeting went well, she does a superb job playing the frightened/cagey Elsa, married to a crippled millionaire lawyer. Mike (Welles) and Elsa fall for each other. He wants to run away with her, she doesn't know if she can live without the things money can buy. Elsa, her husband, and his partner bicker and bite, just like the sharks Mike describes attacking each other and his foretelling proves just too true. Several twists and turns follow in this murder mystery as we come to the climax in the fun house. (Think the ending shootout in The Man with the Golden Gun, which borrowed heavily from this scene). I wasn't sure who the murderer was until the end.

This movie is like shrimp in garlic and lemon. The dish centers on the sea, it is subtle, sour, and pungent, all to great effect. These might not be the best, fresh shrimp, but good quality frozen shrimp from Costco. The flavorful sauce adds to the naturalness of the pink shrimp as you fill up on a healthy, but filling alternative to more mundane, common fare. 7/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies@@@1 -I think we all begin a lot of reviews with, "This could've made a GREAT movie." A demented ex-con freshly sprung, a tidy suburban family his target. Revenge, retribution, manipulation. Marty's usual laying on of the Karo syrup. But unfortunately somewhere in Universal's high-rise a memorandum came down: everyone ham it up.

Nolte only speaks with eyebrows raised, Lange bitches her way through cigarettes, Lewis "Ohmagod's!" her way though her scenes, and Bobby D...well, he's on a whole other magic carpet. Affecting some sort of Cajun/Huckleberry Hound accent hybrid, he chomps fat cigars and cackles at random atrocities such as "Problem Child". And I want you to imagine the accent mentioned above. Now imagine it spouting brain-clanging religious rhetoric at top volume like he swallowed six bibles, and you have De Niro's schtick here. Most distracting of all, though, is his most OVERDONE use of the "De Niro face" he's so lampooned for. Eyes squinting, forehead crinkled, lips curled. Crimany, Bob, you looked like Plastic Man.

The story apparently began off-screen 14 years earlier, when Nolte was unable to spare De Niro time in the bighouse for various assaults. Upon release, he feels Nolte's misrep of him back then warrants the terrorizing of he and his kin. And we're supposed to give De Niro's character a slight pass because Nolte withheld information that might've shortened his sentence. De Niro being one of these criminals who, despite being guilty of unspeakable acts, feels his lack of freedom justifies continuing such acts on the outside. Mmm-kay.

He goes after Notle's near-mistress (in a scene some may want to turn away from), his wife, his daughter, the family dog, ya know. Which is one of the shortcomings of Wesley Strick's screenplay: utter predictability. As each of De Niro's harassments becomes more gruesome, you can pretty much call the rest of the action before it happens. Strick isn't to be totally discredited, as he manages a few compelling dialogue-driven moments (De Niro and Lewis' seedy exchange in an empty theater is the film's best scene), but mostly it's all over-cranked. Scorsese's cartoonish photographic approach comes off as forced, not to mention the HORRIBLY outdated re-worked Bernard Hermann score (I kept waiting for the Wolf Man to show up with a genetically enlarged tarantula).

Thus we arrive at the comedic portion of the flick. Unintentionally comedic, that is. You know those scenes where something graphically horrific is happening, but you can't help but snicker out of sight of others? You'll do it here. Nolte and Lange squawking about infidelity, De Niro's thumb-flirting, he cross-dressing, and a kitchen slip on a certain substance that has to be seen to believed. And Bob's infernal, incessant, CONSTANT, mind-damaging, no-end-in sight blowhard ramblings of all the "philosophy" he disovered in prison. I wanted him killed to shut him up more than to save this annoying family.

I always hate to borrow thoughts from other reviewers, but here it's necessary. This really *is* Scorsese's version of Freddy Krueger. The manner in which De Niro relishes, speaks, stalks, withstands pain, right down to his one-liners, is vintage Freddy. Upon being scalded by a pot of thrown water: "You trying' to offer sumpin' hot?" Please. And that's just one example.

Unless you were a fan of the original 1962 flick and want a thrill out of seeing Balsam, Peck, and Mitchum nearly 30 years later (or want a serious head-shaking film experience), avoid a trip to the Cape.@@@0 -What can I say, it's a damn good movie. See it if you still haven't. Great camera works and lighting techniques. Awesome, just awesome. Orson Welles is incredible 'The Lady From Shanghai' can certainly take the place of 'Citizen Kane'.@@@1 -"Look, I know this may suck right now, but pain is temporary, film is forever. Whatever you do right now is burned into celluloid for all time and for thousands of years to come." – Robert De Niro

This was initially a film for Steven Spielberg, the director hiring several screenwriters to adjust the screenplay so that it more suited his themes. And so we have a dysfunctional family that is threatened by a deranged monster in the form of a recently released from prison Robert De Niro. Like "Jurassic Park", "Poltergeist" and "War of the Worlds", the dysfunctional family bands together to defeat the beast, the beast being the creation of the father, a lawyer who failed to defend De Niro during his trial.

In typical Spielberg fashion, the father kills the monster that undermines the family and is then promptly absolved of his sins. Like Oscar Schindler, Robin Williams, Sam Niel, Tom Cruise and virtually every "daddy" figure in Spielberg land, the father reclaims his paternal duty in the kind of bittersweet coda that Spielberg so enjoys.

But Spielberg eventually abandoned the picture and the project was instead turned over to Martin Scorsese, who at the time was seeking to try his hand at more commercial fare. The result is arguably the worst film in Scorsese's filmography, and, ironically, his most illuminating.

An artist's failures or misfires are often very revealing, exposing the inner workings of their art. When the story doesn't work, the characters don't connect or the images don't sear, we find ourselves left with a kind of inner core. This – the remaining carcass- is what the director's cinema is about.

Now "Cape Fear" is an impersonal film, so we won't find any thematic connections to the rest of Scorsese's filmography ("You already sacrificed me!" De Niro yells, but the films themes of Catholic redemption are cookie cutter). What the film does, though, is expose the kind of language that his filmography hinges on. Watch how Scorsese's camera desperately whips back and forth, how he zooms frantically onto doorknobs and windows in an attempt to force tension and how his characters are all loud and screaming for attention. But more importantly, watch how the film makes no spatial sense. A showdown on a boat at the end of the film takes place on an obvious sound-stage, a street parade is claustrophobic and takes place within no larger context and the family's house doesn't seem to exist anywhere in particular. There is simply no geographical sense to anything in the picture, Scorsese unable to film space or create any kind of spatial environment.

The reason for this is that Scorsese's camera always has to be bound, or intimately tethered, to his central character. For the world around the character to make sense, his camera has to be focused on the character. Resnais can take you around a French Hotel, Welles and Hitchcock can dance you down a street and up a building, Cameron can give you a tour of the Titanic, Scott can recreate an entire future cityscape, Lucas can give you an alien desert planet, and most other directors can create a sense of space by textbook "close up-mid shot-wide shot" combinations, but Scorsese can't do this. There's no poetry, no sense of tangible space in his films. He's all about the character. You break that tether, you leave that boxing ring, that taxi cab, you look away from De Niro, and everything collapses. He simply cannot break away from this very documentarian style of shooting, which, in a way, is a prerequisite for action film-making.

Scorsese tried to rectify this problem with "Gangs of New York", where the space and the sets become the central character, but even this self consciously spatial experiment gets sabotaged by the magnetism of Daniel Day Lewis, the actor drawing Scorsese's camera inexorably toward him like a moth to a bulb.

5/10 – Even as a generic B-movie, this is an ugly, vulgar looking film. Look at the matte paintings, the inept attempts at tension, the silly rotorscoped special effects and hokey fistfight showdown. Still, we have Robert De Niro to pick up the slack. De Niro, who gives his body over to Scorsese like a tattooed Christ, gives the film its only great scene. In an improvised romantic sequence with young a Juliette Lewis, he sticks his thumb into her mouth and kisses her. A kind of symbolic rape, the girl runs away, both aroused and repelled by this man's interest.

But De Niro's performance, so deliciously over the top, simply can't be imitated by Scorsese. You'd need the operatic tone and the baroque visuals of someone like De Palma to make this work. But Scorsese? Nope.

Worth one viewing.@@@0 -Surreal film noir released soon after the "real," genre-defining classics "The Maltese Falcon," "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice." Welles films shouldn't be evaluated against others. He was playing by different rules. In fact, he was playing. This starts where other femme fatale films leave off, so the vaguely logical (but interesting) whodunit is embellished with a display of Wellesian scenes (typical rapid-fire style), dialog (lots of "hard-boiled" philosophy), and unusual acting (good Hayworth presumably intentionally one-dimensional). To Welles "genre" may have meant "formula" but he seemed to like using "mysteries" as backgrounds for his "entertainments."@@@1 -The film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.

I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience.

But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.

But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking "really, is that so" etc. to each other, or characters saying "no" or "are you listening to me," ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.

I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes.@@@0 -Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet!@@@1 -The plot it's not so original. If someone saw "L'ultimo Bacio" there's nothing new. A wealthy family in Rome living everyday life that's is boring and false, with everyone asking to others what they think about them. Really boring after an half of hour because it's simple to understand where the story is going to finish. This because it's simple to see the moralistic view of Muccino in this movie, so even the hardest parts seem normal. To summarise in the first 2 minutes of the movie it would be enough and the aim of the movie were already said. the family saw from a 30 years old, i don't like to see movie that want to show the reality but for be coherent to his thoughts has to push more than the normal the situations. Really good how Muccino put the camera in the right place moving with the carathers and it's the only reason that bring me not sleeping in the cinema though always in the movie scream from the begining. Perhaps it could be good to see the family how they are in reality and not put the blame to something out of it. Morante was intense and great as usual but unfortunatly on a bad movie!@@@0 -Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.@@@1 -The actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of "booty shaking"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she "throws herself at" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous.@@@0 -This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.

'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.

Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.

The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.

Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.

Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.

This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.

The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.

9/10.@@@1 -Beast Wars is a show that is over-hyped, overpraised and overrated. Let's meet the characters of this obnoxious show whose creators must have been on acid to try and make a show like this.

Cheetor- Seriously, they need to have censor bars on this guy. How come he dosen't creep out the viewers having the same voice as baby Taz? (at least Razzoff from Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc is voiced by Slip & Slide) Action Blast- If you want a line of show that suck, get G4 Tranceformers Cybertron- A show that should go down in a toilet. Good Job Creators (Sarcasm) Show it self-Retarded & boring (at least the Super Mario games are better) This show had a lot of followers sayin' bring it back, but I believe that it was cancelled for its own good.@@@0 -In NYC, seaman Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles) rescues Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) from a mugging & rape as she takes a horse & carriage through Central Park -and lives to regret it. Titian-haired Hayworth's a platinum blonde in this one; as dazzling as fresh-fallen snow -but nowhere near as pure...

To reveal any more of the convoluted plot in this seminal "noir" would be criminal. It's as deceptive as the mirrors used to cataclysmic effect in the final scenes -but the film holds far darker secrets: From the NY Times: "Childhood Shadows: The Hidden Story Of The Black Dahlia Murder" by Mary Pacios "Mary Pacios, who was 5 years old when she was befriended by 15 year old Bette Short, retraces Short's steps, interviewing friends and associates. She also offered a detailed, if speculative, analysis of Orson Welles -particularly in regard to his movie "The Lady From Shanghai". According to Ms. Pacios, the movie, along with related archival materials, has many of the same ritualistic elements associated with Short's murder. She raises the question: Could Welles have been the killer?" Interesting theories -and with the spate of books now out on "The Black Dahlia", much more may come to light. Fritz Lang's brutal "film noir", "The Big Heat" (1953), was a roman-a-clef telling of the "Dahlia" killing in "The City Of Nets" that was L.A. -but it's the Orson opus that the "Dahlia" had a "hands-on" connection to. In reality, it was Bugsy Siegel (and the Hollywood mob wars of the 1940's) that did the "Dahlia" in ...but that doesn't negate much of what Pacios wrote. Almost all of Hollywood intersected with Elizabeth ("The Black Dahlia") Short and her tale/aura/legacy/curse is encoded in a number of Golden Age films.

The "Black Dahlia" was always on the peripheral edges of "Shanghai"-even before it started filming. Barbara Payton on Franchot Tone: "It was when he was thinking about making "The Lady From Shanghai", before he lost the option to Orson Welles. Franchot said he'd been in a bad state over that deal when he ran into the Dahlia in the Formosa Cafe* across from the Goldwyn studios..." *The floor above the Formosa Cafe was Bugsy Siegel's office and "The Dahlia" one of his on again/off again working "girls".

It gets deeper and darker- After the 1951 brawl over Barbara Payton between Tom Neal and Franchot Tone that sent Franchot to the hospital with a concussion and "never talking the same way again," Barbara said, she married Tone "just to spite Neal." Tom ("Detour") Neal also knew "The Dahlia" (who didn't?) and became obsessed- From "L.A. Despair" by John Gilmore: "The January 1947 slaying of the young, beautiful would-be actress Elizabeth Short, known as "The Black Dahlia", was one of the most grisly murders in the annals of modern crime. A project, called "Who Killed The Black Dahlia?" was being kicked off by actor Tom Neal, a hell-raiser from WW II movies. Potential producer Gene Harris: "Someone will have to come up with a more imaginative business proposition than what has been presented by Tom Neal and his cohorts..." Not long after: "It would be very clear one beautiful day to come, when Tom would sneak up on his pretty, new Palm Springs wife as she lay on their sofa and shoot a .45 bullet through her head." Barbara Payton and Norma Jean Dougherty (later Marilyn Monroe) knew the "Dahlia" and their stories are well known. It seems all who crossed the path of the "Dahlia" (like the proverbial black cat) entered a "Twilight Zone" darkness and/or had an incredible string of bad luck afterward. Tone/Neal/Welles are only a few -and this includes a butchered film called "The Lady From Shanghai"...

"Lady From Shanghai" took two years to be released, thanks to extensive re-editing -and all because Columbia president Harry Cohn couldn't understand the story. It's dark "noir" to be sure -one of the darkest, in fact. It's also a wicked satire on life in the new Atomic Age.

Nicolas Christopher:

"Shanghai" pushes forth an insistent subtext of nuclear apocalypse and contains the definitive noir statement concerning the atomic bomb and the American city. The film's principal murder victim (and there are many), a psychotic and double-dealing lawyer, manically foresees Armageddon at every turn, claiming he can "feel it." He announces that he plans to escape to a remote Pacific island -a particularly acid joke on Welles' part since this was the very year the U.S. began testing atomic bombs at just such a place, the Bikini Atoll, relocating all the inhabitants and destroying the ecosystem. By the time of Bikini, the erotic identification of Hayworth with the Bomb appears to have been institutionalized, with the blessing of the military brass; the first bomb dropped in the Pacific testing ground in named "Gilda" and has Hayworth's image, in provocative dress, painted directly on its casing..."

Its ironic that Orson Welles' broad interpretation of an Irishman is considered a detriment to the film by many. Welles is giving a clue to viewers that "Michael O'Hara" is only the storyteller - not part of the story even though it revolves around him. "O'Hara" contradicts the shark motif throughout the film. Sharks on a feeding frenzy won't stop until there's nothing left. "Michael O'Hara" lives to tell the tale. "Elsa Bannister" causes a feeding frenzy during "O'Hara's" trial and her netted chapeau suggests she's caged in -so as not to devour the human spectators to a Roman Coleseum. The spectators are on a feeding frenzy of their own, gossiping and carrying on about "Elsa" -a human aquarium correlating to the San Francisco marine museum sequence. That's the human condition ...except for "Michael O'Hara". And yet he'll be spending his life trying to forget his past ("Elsa") -or die trying. "Elsa" is part of "Michael" and the tale eats its own tail in the end and the viewer is cautioned to stay out of trouble.@@@1 -Growing up with the Beast Wars transformers, I wasn't very familiar with the original Transformers, and now that I have seen the awesome movie, and now that I have seen the older cartoon on which it's based, I have to say I like the original cartoon and the live action movie more than Beast Wars.

Not that I don't like the BW characters, I just think that characters like Optimus Prime are better than Optimus Primal.

I mean, "AUTOBOTS TRANSFORM AND ROLL OUT!" sounds a lot better than "MAXIMALS MAXIMIZE!" The voice of the original Optimus Prime still makes me a strong believer that he's a real commander, more so than Optimus Primal.

Besides, Powermaster Optimus Prime is a lot more powerful than Optimal Optimus. Just look on the web!

Megatron in the BW character seemed more like a humorous version of the more evil version of him in the original series.

Besides what's cooler, robots changing into animals or robots changing into vehicles and spaceships? Gimme the original Transformers any day over Beast Wars!@@@0 -The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.

If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.

What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.

For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this.

The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.

Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.

My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).

Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.

More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all.@@@1 --me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...

---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.

----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...

2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.

6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war)@@@0 -The second Care Bears movie is immensely better than its predecessor. It has a deeper plot, better character development, and the tunes (especially the closing song) are both catchy and warm-hearted. Sure the movie tends to over stress caring but come on, it IS a Care Bears movie. This movie is a great picture to show to kids because it emphasizes friendship, love, and again, caring. Not to mention the Care Bears are just too adorable!@@@1 -First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a "girl"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the "bad guys" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the "African American" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della!@@@0 -Critics need to review what they class as a quality movie. I think the critics have seen too many actions films and have succumbed to the Matrix style of films. Europa is a breath of fresh air, a film with so many layers that one viewing is not enough to understand or appreciate this outstanding film. Lars von Trier shows that old styles of filming can produce marvellous cinema and build drama and tension. The back projection effect he uses during the film arouses and enhances the characters, and the focus of the conversation they are having. Other effects he uses such as the colour and black and white in one scene much like Hitchcock and the girl with the red coat grabs attention and enhances the drama and meaning of the scene. The commentary is superb and has a hypnotic effect, again maintaining the focus on the central characters in the scene and there actions.

I could talk about the effects more but I think you all would agree they push this film into a category of its own, and really heighten the drama of the film. A film to buy if you don't own already and one to see if you have not.

10/10 Don't miss this artistic noir film from one of the great film directors.@@@1 -Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.@@@0 -At the point in time that The Lady from Shanghai was being made, the marriage of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth was disintegrating. The film was as much an effort by Welles to rekindle the old flames as it was to make a classic noir. Not received well at the time, The Lady from Shanghai has gotten more and more critical acclaim as years pass. Gotten better with age so to speak.

Welles is Irish seaman Michael O'Hara who on a fateful night rescues the beautiful Rita Hayworth from three muggers in Central Park. Sparks do fly, but then comes the rub, turns out the lady is married to crippled, but brilliant criminal attorney Everett Sloane. Nevertheless Sloane takes an apparent liking to Welles and hires him to skipper his yacht.

So far this film is starting to sound a lot like Gilda. If Orson had seen Gilda and was not at this point thinking with his male member, he would have skedaddled back to the seaman's hiring hall in Lower Manhattan. Instead he gets himself involved in a lovely web or intrigue and finds himself pegged for two murders and Sloane as his eminent counsel.

Welles for whatever reason decided that his wife would be a blond in this film. Supposedly Harry Cohn hit the roof as Rita was internationally known for her coppery red hair. This may have soured him on the picture as he joined the legion of studio bosses who saw Welles's vision of independent film making a threat to their power.

Stage actor Glenn Anders plays Sloane's partner Grisby who is one slimy dude, he winds up a corpse. The other corpse to be here is Ted DeCorsia, a bottom feeding private detective who tries to go in business for himself.

It's a good noir thriller, showing Rita at her glamorous best even if she was a blond here. The final shoot out in the hall of mirrors is beautifully staged, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it if one is on any controlled substance.@@@1 -Usually, any film with Sylvester Stallone is usually going to suck ass. Rambo: First Blood Part II was no exception to this. The only movies that Sylvester Stallone were in that were good were Rocky and First Blood. This film is extreamly unrealistic, and boring. It has action, but not very good action. I didn't enjoy watching it, and I would never ever watch this again. No wonder why it won the Razzie Award for Worst Picture. I would give this a 3/10, the only reason why it got the 3 was because it had somewhat good action, but not good enough.@@@0 -Made in 1946 and released in 1948, The Lady and Shanghai was one of the big films made by Welles after returning from relative exile for making Citizen Kane. Dark, brooding and expressing some early Cold War paranoia, this film stands tall as a Film-Noir crime film. The cinematography of this film is filled with Welles' characteristic quirks of odd angles, quick cuts, long pans and sinister lighting. The use of ambient street music is a precursor to the incredible long opening shot in Touch of Evil, and the mysterious Chinese characters and the sequences in Chinatown can only be considered as the inspiration, in many ways, to Roman Polanski's Chinatown. Unfortunately, it is Welles' obsession with technical filmmaking that hurts this film in its entirety. The plot of this story is often lost behind a sometimes incomprehensible clutter of film techniques.

However, despite this criticism, the story combined with wonderful performances by Welles, Hayworth and especially Glenn Anders (Laughter) make this film a joy to watch. Orson Welles pulls off not only the Irish brogue, but the torn identities as the honest but dangerous sailor. Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time, breaks with her usual roles as a sex goddess and takes on a role of real depth and contradictions. Finally, Glenn Anders strange and bizarre portrayal or Elsa's husbands' law partner is nothing short of classic!@@@1 -The summary pretty much sums it all up. This is nowhere near as good as the original. With a script co-written by both Stallone and James Cameron (at the same time he was also writing Aliens). Most of the action was written by Cameron and the political aspects were written by Stallone.

Sly was in the best condition physically as he was making this and Rocky 4 and he does look in great shape or jacked up to the eyeballs on steroids, depending on your own viewpoint or opinion.

Rambo starts off in prison and is visited by Colonel Trautman who asks him to go on a special mission that could earn him a Presidential pardon. He eventually agrees and goes off to the briefing camp run by Charles Napier playing a Washington suit trying to pass himself off as former ex-forces to placate Rambo.

The mission is to find out if there are any missing POWs still alive in camps in Vietnam. Rambo was chosen as the camp he was checking was somewhere he had previously been a prisoner himself. He is told it's not a rescue mission and he is there to take recon photos only.

After a bad attempt at parachuting from a plane he loses most of his kit, meets his contact (who turns out to be a cute woman) and travels down river with pirates to the camp.

He finds there are still prisoners and rescues one. As the 3 flee from half the Vietnamese Army on their river boat they are betrayed by the pirates but Rambo kills them all and they are forced to carry on to the pick-up point on foot after their boat is rammed and blown up with Rambo almost on board.

Rambo is betrayed again and abandoned as Napier orders the recall of the rescue helicopter. It is clear as Trautman returns to base to berate him that no survivors were expected to be found.

Steven Berkoff turns up as a Russian Spetznatz Colonel and Rambo is tortured and eventually escapes only to be pursued by more Vietnamese troops and Spetznatz. Killing many of them, Rambo finally steals a chopper and rescues most of the prisoners to return to his base.

He resists the urge to kill Napier for abandoning him but destroys the Ops Centre.

A weak plot and very weak ending as Rambo walks off into the sunset as a free man.@@@0 -As I watched one of Orson Welles' last contributions to Hollywood as a filmmaker, I knew I was watching a great movie unfold, though at times I did not know why. The story in The Lady from Shanghai has the prime elements of a film-noir: average-Joe lead, femme fatale, conspicuous supporting characters, and a comprehensible if somewhat convoluted plot structure. It is an entertaining ride, and it's filled to the brim with Welles' unique gifts as a director, but there are scenes that tend to just not work, or don't feel complete in what was Welles' full vision (the latter is unfortunately too true- executive producer Harry Cohn and the Columbia execs are to blame for that).

Welles co-stars with his then wife, the profoundly gorgeous Rita Hayworth, as Mike O'Hara, an Irish worker who can and does get angry at the right people. Hayworth is Mrs. Bannister, married to Mr. Bannister (Everett Sloane, who played Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane), who is accompanied by a friend Mr. Grisby (Glenn Anders, who has great control in his eyes). They want to go sailing on their yacht and take O'Hara along for the ride, and at first he's reluctant, but agrees since he's falling for the married Mrs. As their journey unfolds, O'Hara finds that Bannister and Grisby are not pleasant to be around, and more so with Grisby, who at first seems out of his gourd. Yet as the plot unfolds, O'Hara is drawn into a scam that Grisby is planning for insurance money, with results that I dare not reveal (although they have been discussed over and over by others).

Whatever liabilities pop up here and there in the mystery part of the story (and those few noticeable moments where shots were studio dictated), the performances and the look of the film are what remains striking after over fifty-five years. Though he doesn't have the terrific Greg Tolland (Kane's DP) at his side, dependable Charles Lawton Jr. assists Welles in creating an atmosphere that is both elegant and stark, covered in shadows, deep focus, low angles, the works. A particular accomplishment is the fun-house mirror scene, which is merely a highlight among others. Welles himself is always dependable as an actor- even if his accent isn't anything special- and Hayworth herself makes a scene a little more lush, despite her path in the story.

The Lady from Shanghai is worth checking out, especially for Welles, Hayworth, or film-noir buffs (fans of the Coen brothers might find this fascinating as well). It may just take a little while, repeat viewings (as was for Touch of Evil), for the underlying motives in the plot to sink in.@@@1 -By rights, there should never have been a "First Blood Part II". The original script for "First Blood" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.

The official title of this film was "Rambo: First Blood Part II", but it is more commonly known simply as "Rambo". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in "First Blood", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.

What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your "trivia" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.

The tone of this film is very different from the first. In "First Blood" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In "Rambo" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made "The Cassandra Crossing", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and "Rambo" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.

"First Blood" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. "Rambo", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong!

By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to "Rambo", "The Green Berets" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10@@@0 -Orson Welles' "The Lady From Shanghai" does not have the brilliant screenplay of "Citizen Kane," e.g., but Charles Lawton, Jr.'s cinematography, the unforgettable set pieces (such as the scene in the aquarium, the seagoing scene featuring a stunning, blonde-tressed Rita Hayworth singing "Please Don't Love Me," and the truly amazing Hall of Mirrors climax), and the wonderful cast (Everett Sloane in his greatest performance, Welles in a beautifully under-played role, the afore-mentioned Miss Hayworth--Welles' wife at the time--at her most gorgeous) make for a very memorable filmgoing experience. The bizarre murder mystery plot is fun and compelling, not inscrutable at all. The viewer is surprised by the twists and turns, and Welles' closing line is an unheralded classic. "The Lady From Shanghai" gets four stars from this impartial arbiter.@@@1 -I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...@@@0 -One can only imagine the film Mr. Welles might have finished without the interference of the studio! This film is a flawed Welles, but worth every minute of it because one can see the greatness of perhaps America's best motion picture director of all times!

We can see the toll it took on Orson Welles the filming of this movie. The story has a lot of holes in it, perhaps because of the demands of the studio executives that didn't trust the director.

It is curious by reading some of the opinions submitted to IMDB that compare Orson Welles with the Coen brothers, Roman Polanski, even Woody Allen, when it should be all of those directors that must be regarded as followers of the great master himself. No one was more original and creative in the history of American cinema than Mr. Welles. Lucky are we to still have his legacy either in retrospective looks such as the one the Film Forum in New York just ended, or his films either on tape or DVD form.

Rita Hayworth was never more lovingly photographed than here. If she was a beauty with her red hair, as a blonde, she is just too stunning for words. Everett Sloan and Glenn Anders made an excellent contribution to the movie.

The only thing that might have made this film another masterpiece to be added to Orson Welles body of work, was his own appearance in it. Had he concentrated in the directing and had another actor interpret Michael O'Hara, a different film might have been achieved altogether. Orson Welles has to be credited for being perhaps a pioneer in taking the camera away from the studio lot into the street. The visuals in this film are so amazing that we leave the theater after seeing this movie truly impressed for the work, the vision and the talent he gave us.@@@1 -The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.

The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.

Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.

To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.

I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable.@@@0 -After CITIZEN KANE in 1941, Hollywood executives turned their cob-webbed backs on the great Orson Welles. With the exception of KANE, Welles lost all creative control on MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and many other films to come. Welles was an innovative and creative genius, the most unconventional of filmmakers when Hollywood was in need of a few more. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is yet another example of the misunderstood view of Welles' films at the time, a movie that seems a bit choppy and non-fluent. It has a conventional 1940's premise told in a most unconventional way, and I am sure some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It is now legend that Columbia mogul Harry Cohn stood up during its initial screening and asked what it was about. In hindsight, many old grumps that ran the studios back then had not one clue as to the cinematic techniques and master story-telling of Orson Welles and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is only nearly great because of their intrusion.

Beside being arguably the greatest director of all-time, Welles was also quite a performer as an actor. At 25, we all know what he did as "Charles Foster Kane", perhaps the most famous character in film history. Here, he inhabits a rare character of dim wit and not much intelligence, something unfamiliar to those familiar with Welles other great work. Instead of a slick, wise tongue, he speaks with a rough, Irish twang. Rita Hayworth (his unhappily married wife at the time) plays an unhappily married wife of a lawyer who puts Welles in a spell and is able to draw him into a job that will take him to the limits of deception and disillusionment. He is a large lug who may have even murdered a man, but the real mystery lies in the relationship between Hayworth (with stunning blonde hair) and crippled hubby Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein from CITIZEN KANE). A creepy partner of Sloane's is along for the sail around the country to set off a number of peculiar events that has Welles' "Michael O'Hara" head spinning. Welles narrates the picture as O'Hara, but things are still unclear throughout. See for yourself and realize that it takes at least 2 viewings to fully know exactly what's up.

An uncharacteristically strange courtroom sequence centers around "O'Hara", with Sloane defending him. It is an oddly comedic scene with some quirky courtroom methods, including Sloane cross-examining himself. I didn't really laugh here because the film stalls at this point after a first portion that never gets to take off anyway. Up to this point, the cinematography is great, some scenes are shot with craft and skill (aquarium love scene), but there is no distinct line drawing the elements and us, the audience, in. Reportedly, the court scene was re-shot against Welles' requests (10 closeups of Hayworth were ordered) and a makeshift song sung by the starlet was thrown in at Cohn's insistence. A gaudy score infuriated Welles, who once again, was left out of the editing process. Thank Welles himself for saving the film entirely with a tour-de-force ending that will always be treasured. The so-called "Hall of Mirrors" scene brings buffs back time and time again, rightfully so.

It must be seen to be believed and it does a good job of wrapping up some confusing ideas presented. The crash of the mirrors represents "O'Hara's" disillusionment and the "crazy house" itself is a masterpiece of art and set decoration. It seems more like a state of mind than an actual place and is indeed "crazy", twisted and turned like a Dali painting. This is a great ending to a flawed picture that if left alone would probably have made the AFI's Top 100. Then again, 3 or 4 more of Orson Welles films may have made all collective "best of" lists if he had been left alone to create his own magic.

NOTE: Look for the Mercury Players that are so prominent in Welles pictures. They pop up all over. RATING: 8 of 10@@@1 -While the original First Blood had its far-fetched moments, it was at least exciting in parts. In Rambo: First Blood, Part II the emphasis is shifted very much onto comic-book action. Plausibility is totally rejected; logic nose-dives; Stallone becomes so impregnable that there can be no doubt he will succeed in his mission. Just like any other wish-fulfilment actioner of that time (e.g. Invasion USA, Commando, Red Scorpion), Rambo: First Blood, Part II cancels out its own opportunities for real excitement by presenting a hero too invulnerable to fear for. If you can tell from the word go that Rambo is going to wipe out hundreds of enemy soldiers, what is left to get excited about?

Imprisoned after the events of the first movie, John J Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a pardon if he will join a covert operation in the Far East. The year is 1985, and a mission is being arranged to find out if there are any American PoWs still trapped in the jungles of Vietnam. Rambo is encouraged to take the job by his old mentor Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), but the assignment is actually the brainchild of a government outfit fronted by Marshall Murdock (Charles Napier). Rambo's job is merely to head for a prison camp in the jungle and check out if it contains any American PoWs – if it doesn't, he is to rendezvous with a chopper; if it does, he is to get photographic evidence of their existence so that they can be rescued at a later date. Aiding him in his quest is a lady soldier with local knowledge, the beautiful and resourceful Co Bao (Julia Nickson). Sure enough, Rambo discovers that there are PoWs in the camp, but he exceeds his orders by rescuing one of them… when he reaches the rendezvous point, the rescue chopper abandons him on the orders of Murdock who, it seems, doesn't really want to find any PoWs because of the political and military implications. Rambo is captured by the enemy and tortured, but following an explosive escape he sets out to free the PoWs and get his revenge on the treacherous Murdock.

The few good points of the film come from Jack Cardiff's polished photography, Jerry Goldsmith's exhilarating score, and the sheer professionalism of the stunt team in performing various action antics. Beyond these scant pickings, the film is a failure. The actors are reduced to macho posturing, the plot rings false, the action sequences are soulless and suspenseless, the dialogue is absurd… even the violence becomes numbingly predictable. At the time of its release America was under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man with simplistic and near-hysterical anti-communist sentiments. For this reason, contemporary audiences lapped up this Commie-bashing shooting-fest as if it was the greatest movie of all-time, transforming it into an undeserved box office success. Thankfully times have changed – nowadays we can look upon it as a simple-minded action flick with a ludicrously high body count, ludicrously dumb politics, and a ludicrous hero.@@@0 -Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders.

The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says.

Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints.

This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game.@@@1 -I don't see much reason to get into this movie in much detail. Sylvester Stallone is once again John Rambo, author and survivor of "A Season in Hell", recruited from prison by his only friend, Major Richard Crenna, to secretly return to Vietnam, take photos of the American prisoners believed to be still held in horrible camps, and return without engaging the enemy.

Fat chance. What if he actually DID nothing more than sneak in, take pics, and sneak out? Who would come to see the movie?

It's essentially a celebration of Stallone's muscles. Preparing for his mission, we see his well-oiled muscles bulging. (They are oiled and bulging throughout.) There is the ritual strapping on of black leather, ugly guns, and even uglier knives. The black guns are cleaned, assembled with loud clacks, and almost as oiled as Stallone's muscles. The bow is tested and, yes, it has enough poundage to drive a bolt through an enemy's forehead. The knife is sharpened with slick snicks.

Stallone and one of his POWs are betrayed by one or two of the suits from Washington, cynical politicians who, you can bet, were never even in a fist fight in grammar school. No guts, you know? Just sit around with their feet on the desk and drink foreign beer.

The movie does what it set out to do, but what it set out to do is meretricious. It deliberately cashes in on the myth popular in the mid-1980s that there were uncountable numbers of MIAs quietly kept in wretched camps by the North Vietnamese. The bumper stickers were ubiquitous. (Free Our MIAs.) Why would they keep them? It was never quite reasoned out but perhaps to turn the POWs into a slave labor force -- in a country that has absolutely no resource other than labor. Or maybe for their propaganda value as an instrument to humiliate the United States -- a propaganda weapon that the Vietnamese kept secret from the world.

As a captive, Rambo is treated in a Medieval fashion by the North Vietnamese. Dipped to his neck in pig excrement and then hauled out of it by his wrists, his muscles still on display. Then, not content with subhuman Vietnamese, a Russian officer is brought in to play the part of the Gestapo officer -- "Vee haff vays of MAKING you remember." A high-tech type, the Russian uses psychology and electricity, not just pig dump.

Rambo returns and declares that he intends to drift aimlessly until "this country loves us as much as we love it," bringing up another myth that Vets returning from Vietnam were uniformly spat upon and cursed, which is why I guess we elected so many to the Congress and appointed others to high-echelon positions. The last three losing presidential candidates were among that despised group. At least Rambo's aimless drifting left room open for a sequel, which arrived apace.

The action movies with Schwarzenegger and Willis and others were leavened by wisecracks but Rambo is humorless. It marches dully through it's phantasmal ideological swamp, killing without mercy, barely speaking, barely able to speak. To speak is a sign of weakness.@@@0 -After all, you do not go to an Orson Welles movie to see a nice simple little plot and a burnishing of the image of a happy-ever-after star…

You go to see theatrically heightened characters locked in conflict against colorful and unusual settings, lighted and scored imaginatively, photographed bravely, and the whole thing peppered with unexpected details of surprise that a wiser and duller director would either avoid or not think of in the first place…

As usual, as well as directing, Welles wrote the script and he also played the hero – a young Irish seaman who had knocked about the world and seen its evil, but still retained his clear-eyed trust in the goodness of others… Unfortunately for him, he reposed this trust in Rita Hayworth, whose cool good looks concealed a gloomy past and murderous inclinations for the future… She was married without love, to an impotent, crippled advocate, acted like a malevolent lizard by the brilliant Everett Sloane…

There is a youthful romanticism underlying it all, and this quality came into exuberant play in "The Lady from Shanghai." Before the inevitable happened, Welles escaped – to a final triangular showdown in a hall of mirrors, which has become one of the classic scenes of the post-war cinema …

Welles did not miss a chance throughout the whole film to counterpoint the words and actions with visual detail which enriched the texture and heightened the atmosphere… His camera seemed almost to caress Rita Hayworth as the sun played with her hair and her long limbs while she playfully teased the young seaman into her web…@@@1 -I remember I loved this movie when it came out. I was 12 years old, had a Commodore 64 and loved to play Rambo on it. I was therefore really thrilled when I got to buy this movie really cheap. I put it in my VCR and started up: Man this movie is really bad! Sylvester Stallone says like 3 words in the entire movie (except for that awful sentimental speech at the end), and has the same expression on his face all the way. And that stupid love thing in the middle, it's just so amazingly predictable. I just ended up fast forwarding the entire thing and went to exchange the movie for something else.@@@0 -These are excerpts from a nine-page "Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out):

"...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the "theme"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to "Please Don't Kiss Me" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as "Disney". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a "falling down" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny "dramatic" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, "I want you to kill him." This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. "Please Don't Kiss Me" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to "Please Don't Kiss Me"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture."

All of these edits from Orson were ignored@@@1 -As an Army veteran, I was deeply offended by this film. In my opinion, it is a disgrace to those who fought in the Vietnam war. To say that the real SF soldiers I knew were offended by this crap is an understatement. If the film were presented as satire or even as a cartoon (it was), it would have been better received. But it was taken seriously my many people, especially overseas. Silly as it sounds, wherever I went in Europe in the late 80's people seemed to judge me and Americans in general by this film. Unrealistic? Hmm, let's see. A monosyllabic, muscle-bound cretin is pulled off a prison work gang to go on a secret mission to SE Asia to free some American POW's. In a running battle he kills about 500 enemy soldiers with an M-60 machine gun that never runs out of ammo and never overheats. And he never misses, running with a 32lb gun held up with one arm. I could go on, but I'm getting a headache. I gave this a 2/10 only because it's slightly better than Rambo III.@@@0 -I was very impressed with this small, independently made picture. The story, about a pair of social outcasts who meet, become friends, and provide each other with a support system both seemed to lack as children, is at times hilarious, at times sad, but always provocative. Music, mostly by underground bands, was used to great effect, as was the experimentation with camera angles, filters, and slow or fast motion techniques. The performances (the leads are played by the writers and directors of the film) are some of the best I've seen in the last couple of years. If you ever felt like a square peg being forced into a round slot, I really believe you'll appreciate "By Hook or By Crook".@@@1 -Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped "romance" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.

All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!@@@0 -Origins of the Care Bears & their Cousins. If you saw the original film you'll notice a discrepancy. The Cousins are raised with the Care Bears, rather than meeting them later. However I have no problems with that, preferring to treat the films as separate interpretations. The babies are adorable and it's fun watching them play and grow. My favourite is Swift Heart Rabbit. The villain is a delightfully menacing shapeshifter. I could empathise with the three children since I was never good at sports either. Cree Summer is excellent as Christy. The songs are sweet and memorable. If you have an open heart, love the toys or enjoyed the original, this is not to be missed. 9/10@@@1 -She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.

Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.

She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.

Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun!@@@0 -people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film.@@@1 -This movie is a joke and must be one of the worst movies Stallone ever made. This is a typical 80s movie where you have one man destroying the whole army by himself. "First Blood Pt. 2" is very similar to Schwarzenegger's "Commando", but there you have Arnold killing the terrorist while here you have a specific nation showed as the bad guys. This movie is a typical American anti-Soviet propaganda. True, this was the peak of the Cold War, but I'm sick of having Communists or the Nazis always being shown as the enemy. There are so many American movies that have this one thing in common. Why can't there a movie that show Americans as the enemy? Who's going to believe that one lone soldier will destroy the whole army? Do you really think that something like this would have really happened? By the looks of it, an average, brain washed American viewer certainly would.@@@0 -By Hook or By Crook is a tremendously innovative film from a pair of immensely smart and talented filmmakers, Harry Dodge and Silas Howard. They manage to tell an original story in a distinctive cinematic style, and it's beautifully shot by Ann T. Rosetti, and wonderfully written -- truly poetic.

The lead characters are true heroes and serve as a rare kind of role model/inspiration for butch dykes and trannies everywhere. This film has so much energy, so much poignant passion and scruffy San Francisco heart to it. I can't recommend it highly enough!

The best butch buddy movie of all time!@@@1 -George P. Cosmatos' "Rambo: First Blood Part II" is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. "We Were Soldiers") also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. "Do we get to win this time?" Yes, you do.@@@0 -What is so taboo about love?! People seem to have major problems with the transgenered.

The title of this movie didn't catch my eye. It was a grainy shot about 4 minutes into the movie is what made me stop channel surfing. I could not believe how freaking amazing this film was. It touches on so many levels of human emotion that it did not once fail to move me in some way. It is by far one of the best independent films I have ever seen. I did not view these characters as either gender, just human. I would recommend it to anyone who loves movies. Especially independent films. Praise to all fearless filmmakers!@@@1 -An offensively over-the-top action adventure,FIRST BLOOD PART II seemed to catch the mood of the US at the time of it's release in the mid-80's,with right-wing Reaganism and virulent anti-red feelings still not finished yet,though the emergence of a certain Mikhail Gorbachev in the heart of the 'Evil Empire' in Moscow would soon render these types of films redundant;even Reagan himself eventually admitted this truism.

In that sense,we can be most grateful to 'Gorby',not for his disarmament treaties with the US,nor his policies of 'glasnost',or even his support of democracy being restored to the Eastern European countries in the former Soviet Union's backyard.No,it's the final diminution of foolish,jingoistic,bloated cold-war adventures like this.The first RAMBO film was hardly perfect,though at least was a mildly literate and adequate action thriller with a not too bad storyline.In this sequel,any sense of even the remotest conviction is instantly jettisoned for silly,senseless plotting and incident in which Rambo single-handedly takes on scores of brainlessly stereotyped Vietnamese and Russian troops to rescue American POW's ten years after the conflict ended,with the Americans on the losing side.

Perhaps the reason why the film was a huge box-office success was to let many Americans wallow in fantasy;they may have lost the war,but there was still unfinished business at hand,and ludicrous comic-strip heroics with a robot-like hero killing virtually every red on sight,with as much hardware as possible,fulfilled such whimsically far-fetched ideals.

This could have been entertaining on a SUPERMAN/SPIDERMAN level,but sadly everything is played absolutely straight.But that is not to say that there is no humour in the film;sadly it is virtually all of the unintentional kind.The action scenes,though technically adequate,never once carry the slightest bit of conviction or persuasiveness,because they are always placed in the most spectacularly unbelievable of contexts;namely,our hero Rambo is always unscathed (aside from a few cuts and bruises here and there) despite the tons of explosives,grenades,gunshots,etc.going around him.

In between the mayhem,what there is of a script consists of the dullest clichés and banalities.Stallone,who co-wrote the script with James Cameron (a long way from the exciting TERMINATOR made the previous year),deliberately seems to have given the Rambo character as little to say in understandable English,and merely comes out with moronic grunts,almost as though he has invented his own brand of patois only understandable to himself.Maybe his colleague Cameron was thinking of The Terminator again with so little communication involved for the lead character! In this sense Rambo seems even less of a human than the Terminator did! The rest of the cast do little better with good actors like Charles Napier and Richard Crenna doing their admirable best with the hackneyed dialogue they are given,and Steven Berkoff hamming it up outrageously yet again with another of his Russian KGB/Red Army villain roles.Berkoff's overplaying is mildly enjoyable but not remotely menacing.How come that Sly managed to survive Berkoff's electric shock torture to kill yet more of those Red Commie scumbags? Well,credibility is never this film's strong point.It is a work of fantasy comparable with THE WIZARD OF OZ.At least that WAS meant to be a fantasy,and an immortal classic it turned out to be.This is only a classic of the most dismal,and indeed offensive,kind.And as for Sly's climactic speech...,rather hypocritical after slaughtering all those people,eh? By the way,in the same year,he also made ROCKY IV..........

RATING:3 out of 10.@@@0 -A great and truly independent film that hit most of my emotions and carried me into another world. Isn't this why we go to the movies? I was especially impressed with the editing and the music, the combination of which was very transportive.@@@1 -Like 'First Blood', this attempts to make a point about the treatment of Vietnam vets, but there really isn't much time for that in between the monotonous gunfire, burnings, stabbings, torture and explosions as an impossibly indestructible Rambo takes out half of Asia, a ton of Vietnamese soldiers, most of the Russian army, various vehicles and anything else he can point a rocket launcher at. The only woman in the middle of all these boys toys is soon bumped off, allowing the testosterone to reach dangerous levels and the script to degenerate into a succession of loud noises. Helpfully supplying a few hackneyed musical cues is Jerry Goldsmith, who carefully checks off all the clichéd themes from Russian rat-a-tat to Chinese ching-chang-chong just in case we don't quite understand who we're looking at. Stallone has a brain in his head; this empty nonsense is beneath him.@@@0 -This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a "Midnight Cowboy" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco.@@@1 -Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.@@@0 -I loved this movie from the opening sequence right through to the end. I found the director/ actor's style of directly addressing me/the audience very engaging.

What I found most exciting and refreshing about this movie was its ignoring -- and thus challenging -- of gender and class stereotypes. The idiosyncrasies of the characters are portrayed as strengths, and the absence of judgment -- and the characters' acceptance of themselves and each other -- enabled me to embrace them and allow myself to be drawn into their world. Without preaching, and with intelligence and gentle and loving humor, this movie has the power to open us to new possibilities, and offers hope for a world in which people see and accept each other as unique and precious individuals. I look forward to more offerings from this creative and talented director.@@@1 -In what I can say was a theft of my time I was taken to see this movie and I must say what a horrible experience. Fay Ann Lee is a terrible actress and is unconvincing in this movie. Larryjoe76 is obviously a shill reviewer. The plot is thin to say the least, the Cantonese dialog is not funny. See this movie at your peril.

David Tang from Shanghai Tang should be after the movie for the little or no revenue this movie will generate. The banal plot attempts to compete with other rom-coms out there, and just blends into the scenery. It was like watching paint dry.

In short this movie was a total waste of time and space. I've seen better movies on youtube.@@@0 -The movie only enter the cinema in Indonesia this year (2007), two years after it's official release, and after many illegal DVD's had found its way to the public. Apparently the popularity of the illegal DVD's lead to the release into the theaters, with still public coming to watch.

The movie is a great epic, bringing Japanese culture into your house in an exiting way. In a sometimes humorist way, the story is told about a theater writer who writes a story for his theater, since the regular Kabuki theater plays is something he finds boring.

At first, the audience might be a little bit confused about which story we are following, but when the story unfolds, we see that the love between a male human and a female demon leads to a great story for a new Kabuki theater piece.

The audience is left in the dark if this is a story that is supposed to really have happened in Japanese traditions and mythology, but that doesn't matter.

The way the story is told with a love for theater, expression, vivid colors, humor and tragedy, makes this a great ride on the roller-coaster of Japanese cinema as well as theater.

Let yourself go completely when you watch this movie, try to see it in a cinema instead of on your television at home.

One critical point though: the soundtrack is sometimes a little bit annoying. Though most of it is great music, there are a few moments in the movie that I think they should have chosen some more dramatic music. But maybe the fact that the story contains moments of humor made the director choose for lighter moments in music as well.@@@1 -Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison!@@@0 -I went to see Ashura as 2005 Fantasia Festival Kickoff. Man, that was one cool kick off. The director was supposed to be in Montreal for the Canadian premiere, but due to health reasons, he's still in Japan...oh lord I hope he gets better and makes plenty of other movies.

The plot is pretty simple, but somewhat original...the demons are roaming in Edo in Japan and Swordsmans called "Demon Wardens" are slaying them and fearing the rebirth of Ashura, the demon goddess who's sleeping and supposedly is very kick-ass.

It brings us to Izumo...some kind of elite swordsman called "Demon Slayer" and his buddy Jaku who's the typical violent jealous asshole...

Seems boring? Well now it thickens....

Izumo took his retirement from killing demons since he slayed a young kid on the "impression" that he was the demon, he never knew, but he did killed her. So Izumo went on with his life and recycled himself in Kabuki theater. In a boat joyride on a nice night, Izumo spots a girl hiding on a bridge and it changes his life and restart to slay demons...for the good cause, the cause of love...and damn...the guy knows how to handle a sword and to pull an entertaining massacre.

Izumo carries the movie as far as playing goes...he is the total package...he knows how to fight(hell yeah he knows), he's witty, he's intelligent and he has that grit. You never have to yell :"NO IZUMO, IT'S A TRAP" The guy already knows it he has that common sense. He's really the perfect hero.

As far as cinematography goes, the esthetics are pretty interesting. It's by far, the movie that looks the most like a manga. It's creamed full of special effects and nothing, at all cost will prevent this movie to look realistic...it's pretty amazing. Lots of colours an "unreal" photography, other than that...it's pretty straightforward...but like I said, the main character is carrying the movie A must see, a tale lead by masterful hands@@@1 -As low budget indies go, you will usually find that you get what you pay for, and let me just say, I didn't pay much for "Frightworld"...

Writer / Director: David R. Williams brings us the story of an abandoned amusement park, besieged by the vengeful spirit of a slain serial killer. Not a bad premise, but executed with a bevy of low budget mistakes. The camera work tries to be too cleaver for it's audience, by constantly using shaky quick-cuts to cover the fact that they really have nothing gory or scary to show us. This becomes evident right off the bat, as we are introduced to the would-be killer, and soon realize that the (acting) is the scariest thing happening... After a painfully long title sequence we are brought back to modern times, yet the acting remains the same. "Frightworld" does generate some rather unique cinematography when showing scenery from inside the fun-house, but with an extremely long running time, it can't save the film from it's below average indie hell.

There is some mediocre nudity, but not much for gore, which is usually the saving grace for these types of movies.

Fans of really bad B-Movies might find something of interest here, otherwise, don't spend a lot of cash.@@@0 -Japan is in serious trouble. Demons have infested Edo, taking possession of earthly forms and bending them to their unholy will. On top of that, the rebirth of Ashura, Queen of the demons, is nigh. The only thing that stands against this grave threat are the Demon Wardens, a fearsome group of warriors, who might just be as bad as the demons themselves.

Izumo is a retired Demon Warden, who five years ago, took up theater instead of Demon Slaying after accidentally killing a innocent child (In a battle that's strangely reminiscent of the bar scene from Dusk till Dawn). One night by a chance encounter he meets a beautiful and mysterious woman named Tsubaki. Their fortunes intertwine (literally) and they are bound by fate to be lovers and enemies.

If you think this sounds like your typical Japanese Fantasy/Swordplay epic, you'd be wrong. In fact, there's nothing typical about Ashura. It is a hodge-podge of many different genre's of film. Those just mentioned, as well as a comedy, drama, and romance. Director Yojiro Takita (Onmyoji) juggles the genre's fairly respectfully (Although, the comedy seems forced in some scenes) and the end result is a ridiculous, but really fun popcorn movie.

To be sure, there are flaws in the film. Some of the humor seems contrived, and out of place. And the acting isn't the greatest. But seriously, do you watch Fantasy/Swordplay/Comedy films for the great acting performances?? No, we watch them for the action and the crazy CG visuals, all of which Ashura has in Spades. Not to be misleading, the film is not all action, but it is spaced out generously enough with lots of swordplay and buckets of green blood to keep the average viewer happy.

Bottom line; the films has it's faults and is not a martial arts epic, but it doesn't try to be and it features interesting visuals and good swordplay action. The reason the film worked for me is that it never takes itself too seriously and if the viewer does the same, their sure to be delighted by this fun and silly swordplay fantasy action flick.

My Rating 7 out of 10. Fun popcorn movie.@@@1 -Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.

Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.

1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?

2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.

3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...

4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.

5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.

6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.

7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.

Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.@@@0 -Set in Japan, Ashura is the story of Demons taking over the earth. The premise is far more complicated, but the arching storyline should not be forgotten. Japan is in turmoil, with Demons occupying human form roaming the lands. Generally speaking Demons look and act like humans, but are evil. The Japanese word they use is not just demons, but rather the classical form of 'ogre' which is a mythological creature of some historic stature. We're talking about creatures that would appear more like gods than simple ugly child-eating monsters.

However in human form all that remains is the green eyes and green teeth, which appear when put under any sort of stress. In order to save the world from Demons there are Demon-slayers. Trained and skilled warriors who can spot and defeat most every kind of demon, and who guard the passage-way between the realm of hell and that of the real world. These are the basic premises.

The story begins with a festival in a local town. Amid these festivities, 3 men ride in, dressed in all black, seemingly intent on doing harm. The villagers run, excepting those which are demonic in nature, who turn green-eyed and try to kill them. The Demon-Slayers end up killing off the majority of the demons. From here the story gets interesting. The whole essence of the story begins when at the gate to hell a fortune-telling demon appears before the 3 gate-keepers, revealing the arrival of Ashura. With it, comes the end of the reign of man, and begins the reign of demons. Ashura however requires some form of birthing process, the first step of which occurred during the opening battle, but which won't be revealed to you until you see the film. The 3 demon-slayers are a wise old man, a powerful yet unprincipled man, and a skilled and compassionate warrior. Immediately you can see the split between them, the old man wanting to stop the demons, the powerful one wanting to bend them to his increasing ego maniacal wishes and the third looking to stop the second. Along the way he meets a woman who he begins to take fancy to, and believes himself to have a special relationship with. She in turn is a brigand who is good-natured, sought after by authorities. When the two finally meet face to face, he places his hand on her shoulder, and suddenly she is scathed by a mark on her shoulder. Needless to say, the mark is not a good sign. What ensues is a battle for earth, a battle between both good and evil, as it should be, but also between good and good itself.

The point for me of this film became something other than what I thought it would. I came in thinking it would either be a fast-paced action style film with demons, or a horror film with macabre evil and foul creatures the likes of which would be seen in Ringu and Ju-on. I was however mistaken in the best possible way. The story it seemed to me is an adaptation of a very old Japanese play, and it plays itself out as such, combining the essentially action driven adrenaline scenes with a great concept, an amazing narrative, and a style which makes you compelled to think rather than just sit wallowing in gore. Many scenes are painted with luxurious dialogue between two characters the likes of which will never be seen in a Hollywood film. It becomes a practically theatrical experience which takes your breath away.

The film makes use of some immaculate scenery and camera-work comparable to many great Samurai films of our days, but adding to it a well-thought and classical plot. With great acting, great music, and thoroughly stunning scenes, its a must watch in my book.

That being said, it does need the disclaimer that it is not for everyone. Its not cheap thrills horror, its not balls to the wall action. Its a horror style play thats been filmed. It has very much to say and takes the time to do so, flying in the face of the conventional one-liners. Like Japanese plays, the exchanges between the characters can last for many minutes before they come together for a quick yet marvelous battle scene. If you can enjoy such a thing, this is a masterpiece. If your idea of a good film is slasher flicks with little plot and excessive nudity, then you can easily watch something else.

Overall, this film to me is a unique and amazing one, which keeps you riveted and amused. it has good writing, good acting, and good direction. It is all in all a solidly great film.@@@1 -This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.

Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...

From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.

That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.

I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.@@@0 -For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.

Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!

On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare "Santa Clause vs. Satan" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes.

Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!

Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself.@@@1 -I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of clichés and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring.@@@0 -Very good drama about a young girl who attempts to unravel a series of horrible crimes. She enlists the aid of a police cadet, and they begin running down a series of clues which lead to a traveling carny worker with a long police record. An ending which is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.@@@1 -This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film.

Absolutely give this one a miss.@@@0 -This is a nice piece of work. Very sexy and engaging enough plot to keep my interest throughout. Its main disadvantage is that it seems like it was made-for-TV: Full screen, and though there were several sex scenes, there was absolutely no nudity (but boy did it come close!). Strange, too, since Netflix shows that it was rated R.

Nonetheless, very titillating, and I wish Alicia Silverstone made more movies like this.

One Netflix reviewer stated that it was part of a series, but I have been unable to find out what series that is. I'd like to find out, though, because this movie was THAT good.

Walt D in LV. 8/23/2005@@@1 -With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.

The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.

In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.

This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal "serial killer back from the dead" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut.@@@0 -i thought this movie was wonderfully plotted it made me confused and my cousin who watched it with me.to tell the truth i think that the younger kevin dillon was hot.hahahaha...but i also thought the girl was stupid to go along with the cop and that was wrong what he said to her before his death"i was inside you".i think that's what she gets for doing what she did with him and how is he going to tell her that she's too young when he never cared how old the other girls were.?now i don't think i myself could ever trust a cop like that.but to tell the truth it was pretty obvious it was him even if he was wanting to become a cop i would still be suspicious of him either way.and that was funny when she sprayed him in the eye in the store.hahahahaha.she was still stupid for going into the warehouse again by herself and so was the cop who died HELLO!! it's called back-up.sometimes these movies make me mad when people act stupid and do stupid things.but that's what i think an thought about the movie.@@@1 -(Honestly, Barbra, I know it's you who's klicking all those "NO"s on my review. 22 times?? How many people did you have to instruct to help you out here? Don't you have anything better to do, like look at yourself in the mirror all day?)

Steven Spielberg told Barbra that this was "the best movie I've seen since 'Citizen Kane'". That pretty much says it all - and serves as a dire warning!

What are the ingredients for a sure-fire cinematic disaster, and one that will haunt you, never letting you forget the tears of both laughter and pain? The ingredients: Barbra Streisand's face, a musical, feminism, Barbra Streisand's voice, Barbra Streisand directing, and an ultra-corny/idiotic premise.

Hollywood is full of egomaniacs, this much we know. In fact, nearly everyone – by definition – has to be an egomaniac in Hollywood. Why would anyone want to act? For the "art"?!? Well, if you're dumb enough to believe what they tell you in their carefully prepared interviews… And Streisand has the biggest ego of them all! This is quite an achievement. To be surrounded by narcissistic cretins, and yet to manage to top them all – remarkable.

The movie, like all her "solo" endeavors, is an ego trip straight out of hell. Every scene Streisand is in is automatically ruined. Stillborn. But as it that weren't enough, she sings a whole bunch of Streisandy songs – you know, the kind that enabled the Mariah Careys, the Celine Dions, and the Whitney Hustons of this world to poison our precious air-waves for decades now. Just for that she deserves not one but 100 South Park episodes mocking her.

The premise, Streisand dressing up as a man to study to become a rabbi, sounds like a zany ZAZ comedy. Apart from it being a cliché, the obvious problem is that Streisand doesn't look like a woman nor does she look like a man – in fact I'm not even sure she's human. The way she looks in this movie, well… it cannot be described in words. E.T. looks like a high-school jock by comparison. She looks more alien than Michael Jackson in the year 2015. She looks HORRIBLE.

The songs. They made me shiver. Particularly "Papa Can You Hear Me Squeel Like A Demented Female Walrus In Heat?" and "Tomorrow Night I'll Prepare the Sequel, YENTL 2: THE RETURN OF THE BITCH".

Did you know that Streisand considered having a nose-job early on in her career, but changed her mind when they told her her voice might change? Can you believe that? She should have done it! Killing two flies with one swipe, that's what it would have been.

If you're interested in reading my biographies of Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.

SHOULD BARBRA STREISAND FINALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT? CLICK "YES" OR "NO".@@@0 -I saw True Crime when it was first released back in the mid-nineties and I have watched it many times since. It is a great mystery about Mary (played by Alicia Silverstone), a high school senior in a California town who's classmate's younger sister was tortured and killed by an unknown murderer. Mary meets Tony (played by Kevin Dillon), a police cadet who sees how bright she is and they decide to work together to try to find the killer.

Many suspects in this one. True Crime feels very "true" or real to me. I read a newsgroup review where someone wrote that total suspension of disbelief is present here and it is so true. Alicia Silverstone is perfect in this role and Kevin Dillon and Bill Nunn do a great job, as do the other actors. The locations are right on and the writer/director, Pat Verducci, really captures some of the realities of teenage life and of Mary's loneliness (see the scene where Mary awakens from the dream sequence after having viewed the photos she took of Tony). I wish Verducci would make more movies.

I have not seen any other movie quite like True Crime. 10/10@@@1 -I remember when this piece of trash came out, all the newspapers were squawking about how it had taken Barbra Streisand years to get the film made. Well it couldn't have taken that many years; the play only opened in 1975, eight years previously. It made a Broadway star of the great actress Tovah Feldshuh, who probably should have been cast in the film, but NOOOOO...the Great STAR BARBRA HAD TO DO IT HER WAY. AND WITH MUSIC NO LESS! This film is a total disaster from start to finish. For one thing, Barbra was FORTY YEARS OLD when she made it and she looked every minute of it. There was no way anyone could possibly swallow her as a young girl yearning to study Torah. And then when she dresses up as a boy it gets campy. I get the impression that Streisand could not bear to be unattractive so she played around with the make-up; she is prettier as a boy than she is as a girl. And as if that is not bad enough, she gets involved with both her schoolmate Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin, whose best moment is the shot of his naked rear end) AND his fiancée (Amy Irving, who does her usual sleepwalker routine, a bit of schtick the poor woman always resorts to when the director ignores her and she does not know what she is doing). Yentl even goes so far as to marry the girl; I won't even bother to mention the "wedding night" scene.

Then there is the music. Nine totally forgettable songs, all sung by Streisand via voice-over (presumably as a look inside her mind), and each one as intrusive and irritating as fingernails on a blackboard.

I won't say that Streisand does not show a glimmer of promise as a director here; some of the visuals are lovely (Patinkin's backside especially), and she has a good eye for balance. The problem with this movie is that she won't get out of her own way. I did not believe her for one second in the title role; she should NEVER have added the songs, and on top of that the whole mess goes on for two hours and fifteen minutes. I was sick of the whole sorry mess after forty-five minutes.

Awful, awful, awful.@@@0 -i got to see the whole movie last night and i found it very exciting.it was at least,not like the teen-slasher movies that pop out every now and then.the search for the killer and the 'partner' relationship between the hero&the so-called bad guy was parts i liked about the movie.also,i remember once being on the edge of my seat during a specific scene in the movie.i mean it's exciting.maybe some time later,i might watch the movie again...@@@1 -Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.

To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.

Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.

Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting.@@@0 -I have seen this movie and even though I kind of knew who the killer was from the beginning I still liked watching it. I would recommend it to other people. It comes on Lifetime movie network quite a lot. And I am thinking since it's close to Halloween they might play it more. So please be on the look out for it if you are interested in watching it. I believe that Alicia Silverstone played her part very well. I really like her as an actress and person. She seems so nice and down to earth. Kevin Dillon he's performance was so so for me. I am not trying to knock him or anything but I believe that his brother Matt would have been able to pull this bad evil serial killer persona better. Kevin just seems too sweet for me. But I think he did okay.@@@1 -My personal vision of hell is being locked in a room without the ability to close my eyes or block my ears and have this movie play for eternity on every available surface in that room. The whole notion that Streisand plays a boy/man only begins to scratch the surface of how ridiculous a premise this movie is. The single most important thing about watching any movie is the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" . . . it is impossible to do that in this movie.@@@0 -This is the best made-for-TV movie of all-time! Am I saying this because I'm a huge Silverstone fan? Partially, but even without her, I'd still see it. I'm a fan of serial killer genre films, and believe this to be a great entry in that category. Also, Mary Giordano easily ranks among Alicia's top five character creations. Totally memorable - like she really exists. I'd have her on my side, too, if there was a mystery to be solved. She plays the character, like she does with her real life, with complete confidence in everything she does. Seems sweet, honest, nice...just like she is in real life. So is that acting? Yes, indeed, she's sort of a rebel once again. This time she's not bad, she's too good and a bit afraid to do things that seem above the law. But she doesn't do things the normal teenager would do. Instead, she spends her time reading detective mags and solves crimes. A cliche abounds: she's sort of avenging her father's death, in a different way than vigilante-style. At the time, Alicia seemed to be playing the same characters: rebellious, seductive, without a parent, a loner. This happens here, too, but she's a bit nerdy this time around. That doesn't matter; she's still cool as a nerd. Check this out soon, or else Giordano will be investigating why you haven't...@@@1 -I know, I know, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the worst movie, or maybe "Manos, the Hands of Fate." But I can't get worked up over those sock-monkey movies. Of *course* they're bad. How could they be any good? But if you're talking about movies with respectable production values and bankable talent, the T. rex of all turkeys has to be "Yentl." All the treacly phoniness, all the self-absorbed asininity, that stains everything Barbra Streisand has done since 1964, reaches its culmination in this movie. From its lonely summit of awfulness, "Yentl" looks back to "A Star is Born" and forward to "The Mirror Has Two Faces." There is nothing else quite like it. What emotional undertow dragged Streisand out to make this movie I would rather not speculate, and what audience she was playing to I cannot possibly imagine, although I'll bet there's a nine in ten chance you aren't a member of it.

Nobel Prize-winner and saintly guardian of Yiddish literature Isaac Bashevis Singer was so outraged by what Streisand did to his story that he blasted her in public for it. It is a tribute to Streisand's impenetrable vulgarity that she not only didn't commit suicide, but went on to make more awful movies.@@@0 -I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging "Clueless" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. "True Crime" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward "feel" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.

Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!

"True Crime" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.

Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in "Carriers" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played "Captain Arends". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show "Who's the Boss" may also have an interest in "Carriers" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.

"True Crime" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing.@@@1 -This might be the worst film ever made, and is possibly worth seeing for that reason alone. Streisand is laughably unbelievable as a young woman posing as a man in order to study Judaism. The soundtrack is torturous, featuring Barbara belting out some of the weakest blather ever put to film. And don't even get me started on the plot. You will actually get more chuckles out of this film than many comedies because it is soooooooo terrible. The rampant ego of Streisand, thinking she could somehow raise this stinker to Oscar heights, led to this disaster. I'm pretty sure the novelist, Isaac Bashevis Singer, hated this film and never forgave Streisand. I can't blame him. This movie is like watching a car wreck in slow motion for two hours with the soundtrack of 'The Sound of Music' being played backwards on an old turntable. It's truly that bad. I'm amazed that anyone from Streisand enjoyed this movie on the level that it was intended.@@@0 -I must admit I'm a little surprised and disappointed at some of the very negative comments this film seems to provoke. I think its a great horror/sci fi film. Colonel Steve West (Alex Rebar) returns to Earth after an historical space flight to Saturn. While in space he contracted some bizarre and unknown disease. He wakes up in a hospital bed, he looks in a mirror and before his very eyes his face is melting! Escaping the hospitals supervision, he hides out in some local woods surrounding a small town. Unfortunately he starts to develop a rapidly growing hunger that can only be satisfied by eating other people. He must feed on human flesh and drink the blood of others to survive! Stalking human prey he begins his reign of terror! Its up to his old friend Dr Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning) to find him and try and help him. He has to work alone as his boss General Perry (Myron Healey) wants it kept ultra quiet. Nelson can't even tell his wife Judy (Ann Sweeny). However, Sheriff Blake (Micheal Alldredge) becomes suspicious as General Perry turns up just as some of the local townspeople start turning up half eaten. I don't really understand why this film gets such negative reviews, what do people expect? Anyway, I really like this film. The star of the film are unquestionably Rick Bakers Special Make-up and gore effects which for the most part are excellent, and the fact their all prosthetic effects and no rubbish horrible CGI makes them even better. Writer and Director William Sachs isn't afraid to use them either, we get some nice long lingering close up shots of the incredible melting man and they hold up very well, even now. Photography, music and direction are a little bit dull, but professional enough. The script manages to create some sympathy for the the monster, shots of him looking longingly into Ted Nelsons house, or when he sees his own reflection in some water and reacts violently. The ending, set in a large factory of some sort, is pretty downbeat so don't expect any happy ending. Which surprised me. Also, the script doesn't really do anything with the premise, he just walks around melting and killing, with his friend trying to stop him, maybe a bit too simple. Personally I think the worst bit of the film is near the start when the fat nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion, her screams are also portrayed in slow motion too, it looks and sounds totally ridiculous! You need to see it to believe it! I like this film a lot and recommend it to 70's and 80's horror/sci fi fans. A bit of a favourite of mine.@@@1 -A seemingly endless movie that really deserves a zero rating. The premise seems simple enough: Yentl, a girl interested in studying the Talmud, wants to go to school. But only boys are allowed to study, so after her father's death she decides to disguise herself as a boy to get in. She does and becomes close friends with Avigdor, who is to be married to a beautiful woman named Hadass. Hadass' family learns Avigdor's brother committed suicide, and the wedding is called off. Yentl, now calling herself Anschel, is then selected to marry Hadass. She does but it is never consummated. Yentl/Anschel and Avigdor go away for a few days, and Yentl/Anschel reveals her secret to him. The movie ends with Avigdor returning to (and marrying?) Hadass, and Yentl going to America to continue her studies although she will have to continue to do so in disguise.

The plot above seems interesting at first for a movie over 2 hours long, but there are several things that ruin it. For starters, there is the constant SINGING. (I can already hear the critics shouting.) Yes, I know this is a musical so there are supposed to be lots of songs and dance numbers. But the movie could have been improved if it were directed and played without them. The songs become tedious after a while, and there isn't as much dancing as one would expect. Many of the songs are forgettable, with no real memorable lyrics, and those with any significance could easily have been substituted by a voice-over. Only one song stands out from the rest, "Papa Can You Hear Me". It is obvious that most of the others were deliberately placed so Streisand could simply have a reason to show off her vocal abilities every five to ten minutes. Chances are anyone who will see this film will already know what a superb singer and actress she is, so the songs really aren't necessary.

Second, Streisand's makeup, which can be seen during her scenes as a man (the lipstick, enhanced lashes, and traces of blush are all obvious) makes it hard for the audience to believe in the Yentl/Anschel character, that she is actually serious, and fooling her new friends, colleagues, and even Hadass, into believing she is a man. Yet we are asked and expected to believe that very thing. There seems to be a contradiction, as her character talks, or rather sings, of how she doesn't think she can pull it off, but is surprised that everyone seems to be fooled because she is wearing men's clothing. This means that we are then expected to believe the other characters are so naive they can't see the other differences, such as her actions, which are clear giveaways. The facial differences alone cannot be included, as other characters in the film mention that some of their male relatives or friends didn't have a beard or other facial hair. Nevertheless, in the 1900s, if a woman dressed as a man, but wore as much makeup as Streisand's character did, and still tried to pass herself off as a man solely because she wore men's clothing, it would have been deemed unacceptable and caused an outrage. Chances are she would probably be forced to leave the town, or even the country. Therefore the "feminine" makeup on Streisand does not lend to the character's credibility, and only weakens the plot. If it was only applied to make Streisand look more beautiful, it should have been scrapped.

Thirdly, when Yentl/Anschel herself reveals who she truly is toward the end, we are then asked to believe that the other characters are not as smart as Streisand's and only when they learn the "truth" do they become a little wiser. By now it becomes more and more apparent that the whole plot is so far fetched that it is nothing more than a custom-made vehicle for Streisand to fuel.

Lastly, there are those who are fans of Streisand who will find no fault with this film, its plot, or the songs. To those I must respectfully disagree. While she has excellent vocal and acting abilities, I am not a "fan" of her style of singing. However, I have enjoyed many of her other features including musicals. There are even some songs of hers that I like, so I am not a "hater" nor have set out to bash her. I have written this review from an honest perspective, from someone who has tried their best to watch this movie - several times even - and has noted the problems within. If Streisand was interested in creating a great or even believable film, she could have done so here by not injecting her need to show off and prove how talented, beautiful and smart she is at nearly every turn. This movie does nothing more than hurt her abilities, make her appear self-absorbed, and thus turn the film into a laugh-fest unworthy of her fans or audience.@@@0 -To me there is something so appealing and nostalgic about low-budget sci-fi. As a kid in the 50s thats all there was. In 1957 I saw "The First Man Into Space" in a movie theater with my Dad. It had Marshall Thompson starring and some other poor slob who got the title role. It is also about a space mission gone bad where the astronaut turns into a grizzly killer. Scared the Good & Plenty right out of me. The memory of those heebie-jeebies still lives within me. The Incredible Melting Man is almost a re-make only in full glorious color...that is wherever the scenes were well-lit. Just gotta love it for what it is......a little over an hour of darkly lit scenes, disgusting noises, and that eerie music. Bravo !@@@1 -This movie started out good, i felt like i was watching an adult version of Seinfeld. Much to quickly i started questioning the situations and actions of the main characters, and found no answers to why they were doing what they were doing. All the acting was superb but only a few scenes had brief moments where they were actually funny. Dan Cortese was amazing. I loved him in this role. His agent should show this movie to casting agents. Watch the first few scenes and then find something better, or else you will find yourself totally lost in this mess. I found this in a bin at a video store. It cost me two dollars and due to the rareness of this movie i feel like it was a good price.@@@0 -I spied this short on a DVD of best new Zealand shorts, all great but The french Doors was amazing. It starts off slow and you wonder if there is anything going to happen. Just as you relax into the hum drum of home renovation, the most spookiest thing happens.

EEEEkkk, I wanted to stop watching, but I was glued.

The films dips into the primal fear of the dark and with little, if not any, special effects. It chills you right to the bone. A simple yet brilliant concept opened up all those memories of when I was young and dream't up the most improbably but spooky situations.

The film makers visual style are bang on and the lead character takes you convincingly through the story. It is a quality short that I haven't seen in quite some time.

The French Doors has all the hallmarks of a great feature, alas it finishes after ten minutes or so. Never the less a great ending that begs you to want to know more.

Loved it and well done and thanks for the ride. These New Zealanders are really turning out the talent.

A new fan.@@@1 -This is one seriously disturbed movie. Even Though the boys deserved some of what they got.....the sadistic gruesome executions were "slightly" over the top. The only character showing some conscience early in the hunt was killed off before he could offer some help to the sad plot.

At the beginning of the movie, there looked to be some promise of a mediocre affair, but this was just a ploy to lull the viewers into a false sense of security, before the joy of what was to come.

The only thing that could have saved the movie for me was if Jack Nicholson had jumped out of the bushes and yelled, "and, where is the batman?". Kim Basinger could have screamed.

Now that would have been cool!@@@0 -THE MELTING MAN...a tragic victim of the space race, he perished MELTING...never comprehending the race had LONG GONE BY...!

A man (Burr DeBenning) burns his hand on the kitchen stove. But instead of screaming something a NORMAL person would scream, he shouts something that sounds like "AAAAATCH-KAH!!" This movie you've popped in...isn't a normal movie. You've just taken your first step into THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, the famous late-70's gore film featuring Rick Baker's wonderful makeup effects. Baker was just on the edge of becoming a superstar, and did this at the same time as his famous "cantina aliens" in STAR WARS. For some strange reason, STAR WARS became a household name, and INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN did not.

It might have something to do with the fact that this movie is just mind-numbingly awful. From the opening credits ("Starring Alex Rebar as THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN"...that's really what it says!), to the chubby nurse running through a glass door, to the fisherman's head going over a waterfall and smashing graphically apart on some rocks, this film provides many, many moments of sheer incomprehensibility. "Why did they...but how come he...why are they...?" After a while, you give up wondering why and watch it as what it is--a very entertaining piece of garbage.

An astronaut returns to Earth in a melting, radioactive condition; he escapes and, his mind disintegrating as well as his body, begins a mad melting killing spree. The authorities quickly decide that the melting man must be stopped, but (probably not wanting to "cause a panic") want him captured as quietly as possible. So they send one guy with a geiger counter after him. Wow.

Storywise, surprisingly little happens during the movie. The melting guy wanders around killing people. A doctor searches for him with a geiger counter. Various characters are introduced, ask questions, and leave. Eventually the doctor catches up with the melting man, but is shot by a security guard for no reason, after he explains that he's "Dr. Ted Nelson." The melting man wanders off and finally dissolves into a big puddle of goo. The End.

It's so brainless that it somehow ends up being a lot of fun, despite a fairly downbeat ending. Supposedly, a widescreen DVD release is planned. A very special movie.@@@1 -Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers.@@@0 -Thanks to this fungal film I do NOT want my Maypo, can't stomach the thought of Maltex or Wheatena, and even that granola over there doesn't look so innocent anymore! Why wasn't the song "Slop Time", by the Sherrys, used as the theme?@@@1 -I saw this movie, and at times, I was unnerved believing this movie 'saw me.' Munchie sullies the 'farce' for years to come. Re-watch Star Wars, Don't-watch Munchie.

As a responsible parent (I'm speaking to those who are parents now), I (you) would not let my (your) child ever partake of this video festival of the pseudo-occult. To insinuate Munchie is satanic, to a co-viewer, is likely to illicit a chilled 'duh.' He is fiendish, alien, rodential, and wholly malevolent - like the Bogey man made flesh, invisible to adults, tempting children with lifestyles they could never afford (without the income made possible by years of self denial and prudent stewardship). He is a peddler of easy answers, and false ideals. He is everything the morally conscious viewer is not. He is the devil's own Ron Popeil.

I pray (I mean this literally and figuratively, with an emphasis on the former) that this movie has not made the format jump to DVD. It is my hope that this type of 'yellow film making' died an un-mourned death in the cold nights of 1994.

Munchie also loves pizza. I forgot to mention that. It comes up a lot.@@@0 -As a collector of movie memorabilia, I had to buy the movie poster for this film which, now that I've finally seen it, has to be the best thing about it. There's nothing more attractive to hang on your wall than a 27x41 inch image of the melting man. However, there's nothing more awful to put in your VCR than an hour and a half long image of the melting man. At first I thought this movie was pure garbage but then I realized that it did have some qualities which made me laugh. The character of Dr. Ted Nelson has to be the most wishy-washy persona ever brought to the big screen. His dialogue is so trite it's unbelievable! ("It's incredible! He seems to be getting stronger as he melts!)

And could somebody tell me please how the heck they know exactly how much time Steve has left before he melts completely and exactly what their plan is to "help" him? If this movie was meant to scare its audience, I think it missed its calling.@@@1 -Terrible story, poor acting and no humour at all (apart from the final joke at the end)

Some sort of ugly angel is sent to earth to save a boy and his mum from being thrown out of their home. Supposed to be a kiddies movie, but even they will not be amused by this terrible film@@@0 -Astronaut Steve West (Alex Rebar) and his comrades undertake a space mission that sees them flying through the rings of Saturn. His comrades are killed instantly, but it would seem that they are in fact the lucky ones. Steve returns to Earth a constantly oozing mass of humanoid pulp; as he turns into a savage killer, melting every step of the way, he is tracked by his friend, Dr. Ted Nelson (Burr DeBenning).

This is often so uproariously funny - with enough absurd lines and situations to go around - that it's hard for me to believe that the laughs are all unintentional. It seems to me to be kind of a goof on low-budget genre efforts from the '50's and 60's, and as such, it's a marvelously entertaining movie. That sequence with the nurse is simply hilarious. We're even treated to a split screen sequence that doesn't really add anything, but is still a gas to watch.

Writer / director William Sachs deserves credit for coming up with this ingenious idea; his ultra-slimy character is a memorable one indeed. I think his pacing is a little off; some scenes (like the one with the elderly couple) go on a little long, but ultimately he delivers solid, schlocky, B-movie goods with a degree of panache. The climax is especially fun.

Arlon Obers' music is enjoyably shuddery (yet also amusingly silly during some moments), and Willy Curtis's cinematography creates some really great shots at times. That brings me to Rick Bakers' fantastic and convincing makeup effects, which form a highly respectable centerpiece for the movie, right down to the ultimate final melt.

Rebar is under the heavy makeup for almost the entire movie (Sachs also gets my praise for having the movie hit the ground running) and does what he has to do well enough. DeBenning makes for a rather oafish and silly hero, and Ann Sweeney isn't so hot either as his wife, but Myron Healey, Michael Alldredge, and Lisle Wilson are fine in support. It's also worth it to see folk like Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith (doing an appreciable topless shot), Janus Blythe (of Tobe Hoopers' "Eaten Alive" and Wes Cravens' "The Hills Have Eyes"), and even director Jonathan Demme in a bit part.

This is a highly entertaining midnight movie with enough gore, chills, and laughs to rate it as worth catching for lovers of low-grade sci-fi / horror everywhere.

8/10@@@1 -I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Well, let's make no mistake about it. "Munchie Strikes Back" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?

Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was "borrowing" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.

Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. "Munchie Strikes Back"'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, "Munchie Hangs Ten". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10@@@0 -First off, anyone looking for meaningful "outcome oriented" cinema that packs some sort of social message with meaningful performances and soul searching dialog spoken by dedicated, emotive, heartfelt thespians, please leave now. You are wasting your time and life is short, go see the new Brangelina Jolie movie, have a good cry, go out & buy a hybrid car or throw away your conflict diamonds if that will make you feel better, and leave us alone.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out either. THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is a grade B minus regional horror epic shot in the wastelands of Oklahoma by a young, TV friendly cast & crew, and concerns itself with an astronaut who is exposed to bizarre radiation effects, wakes up in a hospital, and finds that his body is liquefying on him as he sits there feeling like a chump. The melting man is played by one Alex Rebar, who is recognizable for about the first four minutes of the film. But once he starts oozin' with Rick Baker's extraordinary special effects makeup he more resembles something you might find in a tin of spam before you drain off all the runny, viscous blebs of grease.

The film has zero exposition and does not bandy about with plot points: There are a couple of scenes involving scientist types riding around on an absurd industrial conveyor machine who dutifully recite a few obligatory lines about the effects of radiation but the movie does not care, really. It's a freak show and a marvelous one at that with a decidedly sick sense of humor for those who can stomach it -- One great laugh comes when the melting man stumbles upon a young girl in the forest and is so at a loss for what to do that one of his eyes pops out. Hilarious.

The "hero" of the film is played by Burr DeBenning, a fascinating character actor from the golden 1970s & 80s television scene who was sort of an early model for the Kevin Spacey prototype; slightly twisted, neurotic, and one step ahead of most everyone in the room even if he looks confused. He appeared just after this movie was made in a bizarre made for TV anthology horror piece called HOUSE OF THE DEAD (or THE ALIEN ZONE) that is regarded as one of the finest movies ever made in Oklahoma, which is where I suspect this film was made as well. The arid, cold looking rural midwestern landscapes are certainly the same, and the creek that one unfortunate fly fisher chooses for his afternoon of sport appears to be the same one that Cameron Mitchell fought off flying alien pancakes in WITHOUT WARNING ... which also had a sick sense of humor, a TV friendly cast, and some pretty outrageous gore. I definitely sense at least an aesthetic connection between the three movies, as well as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS which is of no surprise considering that director Jonathan Demme is a part of MELTING MAN's cast.

Essentially, as others have pointed out, this is a 1950s B movie plot updated for later 1970s era special effects & the inevitable boobs. The movie it probably borrows most of it's ideas from is PHANTOM FROM SPACE with Peter Graves as an astronaut who also returns to Earth after being exposed to funky radiation effects that set him off on a killing spree. One of the things that I actually admire about the film is that absolutely no regard is given for the melting man's motivations: He simply goes on a rampage and the movie's drama comes from wondering if he's going to fall to pieces before certain characters fall victim to his madness. The budget for the film is also delightfully low and every dime spent on it is up there on the screen, Rick Baker's disgusting effects getting the lion's share of whatever was spent on this.

Sick, disgusting fun best enjoyed with a crowd of friends and plenty of beer. Why can't people have made more movies like these?

8/10@@@1 -I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!@@@0 -"The Incredible Melting Man" is a fantastically gross, trashy and energetic Z-grade production that every self-respecting camp-horror freak simply has to see for him/herself! The ideal way to describe this low-budget 70's gem is like a shameless copy of Hammer's "The Quatermass Xperiment" ...only a thousand times filthier! Astronaust Steve West is the only survivor of a disastrous space-mission, but turns out the carrier of a horrible disease that makes him radioactive and ... causes him to melt! In shock after seeing his face in the mirror (can you blame him?), Steve busts out of the hospital, leaving a trail of sticky pus and fallen off body parts behind. Doctor Ted Nelson has to find him urgently, as the disease also set Steve up with an insatiable appetite for human flesh. The premise may sound utterly stupid but this flick is enormously entertaining and contains great make-up effects from the hand of Rick Baker. The melting dude's face looks like a rotting pizza and his heavy breathing makes him sound like Darth Vader! Another big advantage is that William Sachs' screenplay doesn't waste any time on tedious scientific explanations or emotional speeches. The repulsiveness starts right away and lasts until the very last moment of the film. Just enjoy this silly horror gem and try to switch off your brain activity as much as you can because, if you start contemplating about the many stupidities in the script, you'll miss out on all the campy fun!@@@1 -If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).

Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.

Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.

People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.

Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.@@@0 -I saw this movie in 1959 when I was 11 years old at a drive-in theater with my family.

Way back then, I thought it was very funny . . . even though I was too young to understand 90% of what makes this marvelous movie such a delight! I saw it again this morning on "Turner South". As I watched it, I was absolutely convulsed with laughter! "The Mating Game" is a unique classic from a by-gone age. If you're too young to have experienced the enchanting period in history that produced this film, I feel very sorry for you. There's no way you can watch movies like this and understand how they can (even today) deliver such a delightful slice of heaven to "old timers" like me.

Having said that, all I can do is respectfully request that younger people refrain from commenting on films like "The Mating Game".

Movies like this were made for the generation that preceded the current group of your people. And as such, these films speak a very different language than any of you can understand.

In other words – if you don't understand the issues the film is addressing, please don't embarrass yourself by offering comments which – frankly – make no sense.@@@1 -Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".@@@0 -Mating Game is a charming, wonderful movie from an era gone by. Hollywood needs to consider a charming remake of this movie. My wife and I would go see it.

It is an excellent romantic comedy that my wife and I watched on AMC.

This movie has Tony Randall at his best. Debbie Reynolds is great, as always.

Loved it. We plan on ordering on DVD to add to our growing collection of movies.

Too bad Hollywood does not make movies like this anymore.

Hey Hollywood....time to dig some of these type of scripts out of the old safe, update them a bit (without spoiling the original movie and script as you have done with other remakes), and hold a casting call.

A remake would be a big hit on the silver screen, DVD, and on cable/SATTV.

SN Austin, TX@@@1 -Original Claymation Rudolph: Pretty good. Original Frosty cartoon: Needs a little work, but could be worse. But Frosty and Rudolph together on the Fourth of July? C'mon! Give me a BREAK!!! This was one movie that shouldn't have been made. It was bad. It didn't really go for any holiday in particular, except July 4. That made it especially bad since Frosty and Rudolph are usually associated with the Christmas season. And any movie can be ruined by too much singing. The frequent songs made this movie seem a lot longer than it really was. The movie tried mixing two familiar Chirstmastime characters with an American traditional holiday (which almost seems to "limit" it to America), too many pointless songs, and a lousy plotline. The result? A bad movie that can't really be watched at any time of year. I would suggest you forgo this movie even if you like Frosty and Rudolph.@@@0 -I have always liked this comedy as one of the few ever seriously trying to deal with the U.S. Government's yearly demand for taxes. Ever read a tax code?: it is quite a trial to follow it's multiple clauses that our congressmen and senators push in to help their financial backers and various interest groups. Despite claims that it is fair, the tax code has always laid the lion share of the burden on the middle and working classes rather than the rich and influential. Most of the various special clauses are meant for their use - go through the average 1040 or 1040A form and look at the variety of different investment and business ventures all of which have a different set of rules. Most people will never have any use for these.

The story here is that a wealthy landowner (Philip Ober) uses his influence to tip off the IRS that his neighbors (Paul Douglas and Una Merkle) have not payed taxes in 20 years. The Baltimore office of the IRS is under Fred Clarke, and he is snapping to attention for Ober with his influence. He sends Tony Randall to check out the situation.

Randall finds that Douglas, Merkle, and their three girls and two boys are pretty decent people, who rarely have need for cash (they get along on their farm produce and barter with their neighbors). But Randall, trained in the clear (to the IRS) lines of the tax code tries to pin down the family to fundamentals. But gradually Douglas notes that Reynolds is fond of Randall, and he keeps sidetracking Randall from his chore, eventually getting him drunk. He also makes it difficult for Randall to leave by having the motor of his car removed "for repairs" by his two sons.

The plot follows the growing attraction and frictions between urban, vaguely ambitious Randall, and countryside, life loving Reynolds. They make a cute couple actually. Eventually, after Ober complains, Randall is sent back in disgrace and Clarke (a tougher cookie) gets down to brass tacks. And comes up with a very large tax bill, that will possibly ruin Douglas's family.

The film does not end there - it does end happily, but it does remind us that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that the Government does, all too frequently, go in for destruction. A chance in a million reversal saves the family, but it is so rare that we know it is just a dramatic trick. More realistic is how Clarke's boss, (Charles Lane) cuts to the essence regarding Ober's "help" by suggesting that next year his taxes will be looked at more carefully. After that Ober is rather green.@@@1 -A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...

Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the "explanation" offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of "medichlorians in the bloodstream." But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and "Phineas and Ferb's" Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.

There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place?@@@0 -Excellent farce! Which, of course, is all it is intended to be. Thankfully there is neither a social or political message, nor is there the slightest attempt in that direction. Could the plot actually take, or have taken place in any particular time or location? Unlikely, for, after all, this is simply, merely, a movie, and movies spring from imagination, not from reality. The only goal of this movie is to entertain, certainly not to educate, and entertain it does, with reality delightfully and lightheartedly tossed to the winds. I think most would agree that from documentaries we expect enlightenment and authenticity. But for entertainment I want what is nowadays described as a "no-brainer," which The Mating Game is in all respects. For a few chuckles and an outright laugh now and then, this is fine fare fantasy.@@@1 -Ever since I was eight years old I have been a big wrestling fan. It didn't matter what federation I watched. WWE,WCW,USWA. To me the action is all I watched it for.

May 23rd 1999. That was my 19 birthday. I ordered Over the Edge and I was just expecting another pay per view. But this time. I was wrong. Instead that was the night one of the best wrestlers to come out of Canada a true human being fell to his death due to a stunt gone wrong. Not much you can do to change the situation. But what happened affter Owens death made me very mad.

Rather then ending the pay per view and doing the right thing as human beings the WWE decided to protect what comes first and that was the money by keeping the pay per view going as if Owens death never happened.

I gotta tell you. Vince Mchmaon has made some stupid decisions in his life but this was by far the stupidest decision he ever made.

And this crap with saying Owen would have wanted the pay pew view to keep going. Give me a break. When someone dies on a pay pew view its comon sense to stop it. Thats like a police officer shooting a robber or a mugger with a run and then just leaving the man to die so he can go home and call it a day as if the mans life never mattered.

But no matter what happens. Owen will be missed and thanks for the memories for all the times you gave us.@@@0 -about a year and a half ago my dad told me about The French Doors. i thought it sounded interesting enough but i didn't try to find it anywhere. Then about a year ago i remembered that film and thought "hey why not" and tried finding it on the internet. eventually after about a week of looking i found it on atom films. i called my dad over to the computer and said to him" hey dad I've found that creepy film you told me about ages ago!" He smiled at me, turned round turned off the lights so it was pitch black apart from the computer screen and told me to watch it. I started off fine...Then when he started getting worried about whatever was there i found it very unnerving. at the end i pushed back my chair and stood up...it made me jump!:P if you haven't seen this film i highly recommend you do because it is well worth it. even after the fourth or fifth time its still unsettling.

GREAT FILM!@@@1 -What a weekend. Two days ago I watched the first half of "War Games 2: Dead Code", now "While she was out". I am trying to come to a decision which one was worse in terms of pain in my mind while watching. I guess, "While she was out" was worse.

It has all been said before in other comments: Unrealistic, illogical etc. - the only thing I really have to add is that at some point I started feeling more for the evil guys than for the woman because I would have recommended her for a Darwin award if she actually died (only watched first half, so I don't know). Soon I was at two Darwin awards (if that's even possible) for her immense stupidity.

And, hey: Produced by Kim Basinger? So she did not only know the script but was also responsible for bringing this waste of money to us, the people? I consider humans who waste considerable amounts of money to be evil because the money could have used to feed and clothe quite a few people instead of hurting 80 percent of those who saw it in the cinema and giving 20 percent, which are idiots, a good opportunity to show just how much of an idiot they are.@@@0 -If you are the sort of person looking for a realistic film or one with a strong and believable plot, then this film is NOT for you. Nope--you'll hate it. However, for those who like sweet, slightly screwball comedies, then you'll have a nice time watching this slight film.

Tony Randall works for the IRS and he investigates a very nice farmer who never realized he needed to file an income tax return. However hard he tries to convince them of the seriousness of his visit, everyone in the family is thrilled to have company. They dote on him and treat him like one of the family,...and have plans on getting him hitched to their daughter, Debbie Reynolds. That's really about all the plot there is. But the film gets high marks for a fun script and decent acting. A really nice little curio from the late 1950s.@@@1 -not to long after Jeff Jarrett left the WWF for good he spoke of that night . Owen Hart and him where good friends and both 2nd generation wrestlers. Jeff first remarks "I was literally pushed thru the curtain as my lifeless friends body was wheeled past me " . Debra McMichael( Steve Austin's Ex wife as well as Steve Mondo McMichael Ex wife".)

As Owen Hart Fell, a video promo the ring was darkened, as a Blue Blazer (owen Hart Promo was played. The fall and video of owen in the ring was never showed on TV. There are a few news photos that got posted. When they came back from the video promo Jim ross was talking over a all we had was a crowd shot \., He stated that Owen Hart as The blue blazer has fallen and doesn't look good. Lawler then came back from the ring his face was ashen he told Jim that the situation was very critical paramedics where working hard to revive him. Rock And HHH where going there match in a private room when another Referee came in and told them Owen fell at first,knowing Owen Harts constantly being a prankster they thought it wasn't real. But both later stated that the look of the referee face said it all. In fact as he fell ,as mentioned in other post , he yelled for the referee and ring announcer to move.

Brother Bret hart was a plane heading to LA to do a angle on the Tonight Show , he couldn't get any of the plane phones to work, One of the captains got a message to call home something had happened. When he landed in La Eric bishoff was there told him what had happened, and put him on a charter flight to Kansas City to the morgue, Bret even later with Owens widow Martha went up to the top of the arena where Owen was standing. Police found no foul play formerly closed as a accident .

Most of the Information in Bret Harts book as well as the book by Martha Hart ,@@@0 -Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that "Lili Marleen" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's "women movies" like "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (1979) and "Lola" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that "stories can be told much better with women than with men", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, "women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play "The City, the Garbage and the Death" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title "Shadow of Angels" (1976).

Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their "misuse" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because "good" and "bad" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic.@@@1 -This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care.@@@0 -I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more "humanized". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?@@@1 -I expected a bad movie, and got a bad movie. But I couldn't really imagine in my worst fantasy how bad this movie was. I don't even want to try to explain what Blood Surf is about. Is not about blood surfing, but a big a$$ crocodile. They are complaining about the fake shark in Jaws, but Spielberg was wise and didn't show the shark until the end. Here the crocodile is shown a lot of times, and it's the worst fake crocodile I have ever seen, and they don't try to hide it. If you want to see a good fake crocodile watch Lake Placid.

The director had an opportunity to make a decent surf/shark movie, but he had to make a bad b-monster movie. He had the chance to make an original surf movie, but he wanted to make a monster movie. So you have understand how bad this movie is, does it have some good parts? Not really, it got some nudity, and a sex scene that is taken straight out of a playboy movie. The acting isn't half bad either, and Kate Fischer looks good. Too bad she doesn't take her top off. The lead actors aren't bad either. They had some potential. The location was beautiful and the movie start good with some nice surf scenes. The blame is on the untalented writer and director. The dialogue is some of the worst I have ever seen, and the script is really badly written, and the director got no talent what so ever, and not much of a fantasy either.

Don't watch it. Even if you want to watch the beautiful Kate Fischer. It isn't worth it. Watch Sirens to watch Kate nude, and watch Lake Placid if you want some good crocodile action.

3/10 because I'm in a good mood, and Maureen Larrazabal looks good naked, and Kate looks good (but is bad actress,)and Dex Miller, Joel West and Matt Borlenghi did a good job with the piece of sh#t they had to work with.@@@0 -Kate Beckinsale is as good if not better than Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma in this movie, although I really liked Gwyneth Paltrow in the other Emma version. They're both good in different ways. Kate Beckinsale as Emma seems more interesting, almost, though. And I liked the woman who played Harriet Smith in this movie better, too...she was more believably sweet and sentimental. There are certain things I like better about the Gwyneth Paltrow version, though, like how the humorous side is more apparent.@@@1 -Blood Surf AKA Krocodylus is a fair film that has an okay cast which includes Dax Miller, Taryn Reif, Kate Fischer, Duncan Regehr, Joel West, Matt Borlenghi, Maureen Larrazabal, Cris Vertido, Susan Africa, Archie Adamos, Rolando Santo Domingo, and Malecio Amayao. The acting by the actors is fairly good. The thrills are fairly good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed fairly good as well. Same thing goes for the music The film is fairly interesting and the movie does keeps you going until the end. This is a fairly thrilling film. If you the the cast in the film, Monsters, Giant Animal films, Horror, Thrillers, Mystery, and interesting films then I recommend you to see this film today!@@@0 -As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.

The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.

As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.

Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.

Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.

If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!@@@1 -This film is awful. The CGI is the very cheap gray blob CGI. The crocodile looks like a large gray smudge. The worst is that no effort at all is given to making it walk or look like it is alive. It is mostly a photo-shopped CGI that is placed into scenes and you almost expect to see the hand that is moving the CGI smudge across the screen. This is one of the worst examples of CGI effects that I have ever witnessed, and I have seen lots of the very bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.

Aside from the terrible lack of special effects, the cast is composed of the typical low-cost actors who probably work as Waiters/Waitresses at local diners while they wait for their Big Breaks. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene in this movie is when one of the bad guys is attempting to sexually assault Kate and the giant crocodile jumps straight up out of the water to the second floor of the Villains Headquarters and through the balcony and pulls the bad guy off Kate and instead of crashing straight down through the building (and crushing Kate) the Croc just flies backwards at the same angle into the water. No laws of Physics can apply to this movie or the special effects. At least there is honor among crocodiles.@@@0 -This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.@@@1 -Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.

Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!

If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order)@@@0 -The minute I started watching this I realised that I was watching a quality production so I was not surprised to find that the screenplay was written by Andrew Davis and was produced by Sue Birtwhistle both of these brought us the excellent 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice! So my only gripe here is that Emma did not run to 3 or 4 or maybe even six episodes like Pride and Prejudice. The acting was superb with I think Prunella scales excellent as Miss Bates but I loved Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong just as much. The language is a delight to listen to, can you imagine in this day and age having a right go at someone without actually uttering a swear word? Samantha Morton was excellent as Miss Smith in fact the casting was spot on much as it was with Pride and Prejudice. I liked it so much that I watched it twice in two days!! So once again thank you BBC for another quality piece of television. I have seen the Paltrow version and it is okay but I do think the BBC version is far superior. An excellent production that I am very happy to own on DVD!!!@@@1 -***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** If one were to review the film based on the premise alone, one might think that you were looking at an average animal orientated horror flick. The plot is as follows. A group of documentary filmmakers head off to an island in order to film a documentary about surfing with sharks or blood surfing. (I live in South Africa so it was released as "Blood Surf.") Admittedly, this seems to have a somewhat interesting idea behind it which, if it were explored further, could have improved the movie somewhat. However, this is not the case as the blood surfing part of the movie is minimal due to the fact that their documentary is interrupted by a rather large salt-water crocodile.

The script is absolutely terrible. A good example of this is whenever someone gets eaten by the crocodile which is a frequent occurrence in this film, no one seems to give a damn. The most anyone person did in the film was to merely toast the victim in a scene which was meant to be poignant but just ended up being laughable due to the fact that the dialogue in this film was of a highly dubious nature. Another thing that really irritates about this film is the fact that they introduce characters who are totally superfluous to the film itself. They introduce a bunch of pirates who can only be seen to be adding another 10 minutes to a mercifully short film.

The acting can be said to be mediocre. It probably would have been a lot more impressive if they did not have such a terrible script to work from. All in all there isn't one person who made a terrible impact on me. Every single person seemed to be a watered-down caricature and in this way, not one of these actors made any sort of impact on me.

The crocodile itself is said to be huge, over 31 feet exactly and this sense of size is well portrayed by the obvious fake of a crocodile that they have provided for us in the film. The crocodile's death at the end of the film is so ridiculously fake and contrived that it makes one's stomach turn. With a huge cry of bravado, the hero of the film announces that he has a plan which turns out be falling down a hill and getting the crocodile to impale himself on a luckily-placed spike at the bottom of this said hill.

All in all, I would say that this film is one which has to be seen for you to believe how bad it could be. What probably seemed like a good idea at the time suffered from a terrible script and an overwhelming sense of low-budgetness which all served to create a truly awful movie.@@@0 -i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well.@@@1 -This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.

Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about "blood surfing". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.

A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!!@@@0 -Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years.

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld".

I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.

This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10@@@1 -The only real highlight in the movie is the death of the sniveling guy and the reaction of the surviving characters to it.

In every other way, this film is a very lame rip-off of Jaws, Lake Placid, and Alligator, with a little bit of Godzilla (1998) thrown in.

As is standard for a 1990's-style horror movie, the two non-starring females each take their clothes off at least once. The female lead doesn't, since she obviously has a better agent.

The whole movie surrounds the filming of a really dumb extreme sport called blood surfing, in which surfers cut themselves and surf in shark-infested waters. In this film, a giant salt-water crocodile also happens to be in the area. People get eaten. The movie ends.

I don't mind a bad horror movie, but I really hate a dull bad horror movie, which this definitely is.@@@0 -Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane!@@@1 -You, know, I can take the blood and the sex, but that thong bikini shot pretty much did me in. Someone get that girl some pasta before it's too late!

And you know, it's just not a good idea for a schlock movie to start off by mentioning the much better movie it's ripping off.

I gave this one a 2, just because it's marginally better than Tobe Hooper's CROCODILE.@@@0 -This Schiffer guy is a real genius! The movie is of excellent quality and both entertaining and educating.

I didn't know what a weather girl was before I learned it here.@@@1 -Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?

Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...

A red toolbox of death? Please....

Hypothermic weak thugs...

Acting from hell...

Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?

Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...

And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...

Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-(@@@0 +I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him.@@@1 +Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.@@@0 +The story is extremely unique.It's about these 2 pilots saving Earth from alien beings but they have to use a special speed that makes everything around them age rapidly.The whole series is about the pilots dealing with the loss of time,friends,and mentors.

The ending COULD have been fantastic.It started to end on a total down note and leave a real mark but instead ended on a super happy Disney note and annoyed me VERY bad.

The animation is decent for 89 but can't compare to nowadays.I have also heard many complain about the cheesiness of the nudity.I actually found it to be somewhat decent.The nudity for the most part was warranted except in episode 2 where there was an excess.

Overall it deserves a look but the ending keeps it from being a classic.@@@1 +Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.

This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.@@@0 +Being an otaku since the days of Robotech, I can still say that Gunbuster is one of my favorite animes of all time. Considering when it was made, the animation is of superior quality. There are no loops and sequences in which the art decreases in quality. Although the final episode is in black and white, it does not detract from the enjoyment of watching the film. Although it has been described as being "sappy," it should be kept in mind that females do not react in the same way that males do. Since the main character is a female, it should be obvious that she does not necessarily need to resort to "macho-man" tactics in order to gain the respect of her peers. The seiryuu for Noriko, incidentally, also plays Akane in Ranma 1/2. Noriko is as 3-dimensional a cartoon can get; her personality captures the essence of a spirited girl who seems at first to be completely helpless but in the end succeeds through the strength of her will. The only complaint I have is that the mecha looked somewhat like teddy bears. Even the Gunbuster utilizes a rather dubious "Homing Laser" and "Buster Shield" (which is nothing more than having the machine wrap a giant velvety cloak around itself in true Dracula style) technique. I doubt that scene was meant to be funny, but it cracked me up. Yet all in all, I would rank Gunbuster in the top 20 anime of all time.@@@1 +So the wife and I just finished it despite several threats from both of us to turn it off. For the most part boredom was the worst part of this movie, there was just very little excitement. The acting was atrocious, to the point where we actually chuckled several times during some of the worse scenes (the church lady for example). The dead sister was using paranormal means to contact her living twin, although rather then send useful information she focused on trying to scare the hell out of her instead which looked a lot like The Ring. Rather then get the police involved -- which I'm sure those earplugs she found would have DNA all over them -- she instead devises a horrible plan to 'get' the man who covered up the accidental death of her sister. I call it a horrible plan because in the end she allows him to kill her too, which the movie then fades to black. Bad dialog, bad acting, bad ending.@@@0 +This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.@@@1 +This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.@@@0 +/* slight spoilers */

Way back, before Evangelion was made, before Hideaki Anno was an idol and household name for many anime fans, and before Gainax had reached the status of fanfavorite, Gunbuster was made. With only Wings of Honneamise made by Gainax at that time, and the famous Otakon shorts or course, Gunbuster had some tough acts to follow up. It didn't make it easier on itself by picking out a genre that was already done countless times before, space opera.

Luckily, Gainax decided to put it out as a six-part OAV (direct to video) series. This allows the series to have a bigger scope than would have been possible if it was made into a film. This also prevents it from becoming too boring and overly long, with lots of pointless battles and filler along the way. Besides that, they made some effort to stay clear from the tested space opera mechanics used in Macross or Gundam, and many other popular space operas.

For one, the shows starts out pretty light, with Noriko in the Okinawa High School for mechapiloting. Noriko is the daughter of a respected ship commander who died in battle, when she was still a little kid. This makes her life at the academy quite hard, as some of her fellow classmates start to suspect that Noriko is favored by the professors. The first episode is pretty much a comedy drama, with a very tight focus on the characters and setting of the school. Things quickly change when the threat of an alien invasion is announced, and Noriko and Kazumi (best girl in class) are chosen to help the assembled fleet out.

The middle bulk of Gunbuster leaves our female lead in space, focusing on both personal drama and action. A couple more characters are introduced, and parts of Noriko's past are dragged up again. Besides that, the alien threat becomes more imminent every minute, and the Gunbuster, mankind's final hope, is presented. Smart as writer Okada was, he incorporated the principles of time dilation, to spice things up a bit. In short, time moves slower for those who travel at the speed of light. This means that Noriko can be part of a war that takes almost a century to complete. Also the dramatic aspect of this is accentuated, when Noriko sees her friends again on her return to base, who have aged considerably more than her. The science might not be perfect, but it's presented in a pretty believable way, with even some SD science theatre shorts in between the episodes, where Noriko, Kazumi and their coach give a short description of the scientific principles used in the series.

The animation, for a series made in the 80s, is definitely good. The designs are retro 80s style of course, but it has it's charm. Animation is fluent enough and the character designs are nice, although the costumes do betray

some of the fanservice fascination Gainax will later exploit to the fullest. The mechas throughout the shows are pretty cool too, with the Gunbuster as the ultimate killing machine, strong and vast. The last episode was entirely done in black and white. While it's generally believed (but not confirmed) that this was done for budget reasons, it lends a whole different atmosphere to the series, which is suited perfectly for the latter part.

The music is very typical space opera fair. Too bombastic in places, very generic, and definitely not worth buying. It does fit the series for the most part, but it can become quite annoying at times. Tanaka is not really a famous composer, and the only other respectable series he's worked on is Dragon Half. If you think 80s anime music, you will know what to expect.

As the series progresses, the focus slowly shifts from drama to space opera to epic battle, but in such a way the viewer will hardly notice this. Step by step the drama will be toned down, and the battles will take the front row. Neither aspect is ever left completely out though. With the last episode in sight, Noriko and crew are fighting for the further existence of human kind, and with the last battle in sight, certain questions are presented to the audience, concerning to position of the human race in the galaxy, and how far it can go to guarantee self-preservation. While they are never answered later on, they still present some interesting food for thought. The last episode is very epic, with a nice, but quite predictable ending, though not all endings should contain numerous outlandish twists of course. Again, it fits the series.

Gunbuster may sound like your average space opera anime at first, with alien invasions, huge battles, and some personal drama, and for the bigger part, it is. But it is done exceptionally well for a change. Instead of going for a steady mix of former elements, six episodes long, Gunbuster presents us a change from small scale drama to large scale epic heroism. Along the way we meet with some various interesting and well fleshed-out characters, which mutual relationships changing heavily due to the time dilation phenomenon. The show is very tightly written, although it does tend to slip up at some points. Overly dramatic occurrences and too cheesy mecha attacks could have been easily avoided. Overall, the trip Gunbuster takes you on is a very relaxed, sometimes sad, sometimes heroic one. It might not have shattered the boundaries and limits of the space opera genre, but at least it bend them a little. Highly enjoyable anime classic, but not without flaws.

***/*****@@@1 +This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.@@@0 +Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over.@@@1 +Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas.@@@0 +Aim For The Top! Gunbuster is one of those anime series which has classic written all over it. I totally loved this series, and to this day, it remains my favorite anime. And while it was not Gainax's first animated product, it was their first OVA series.

Mainly starting out as a parody of the 1970's sports drama Aim For The Ace (Ace O Nerae!), Gunbuster picks up steam as a serious drama toward the ending of episode 2, when Noriko Takaya is forced to relive the death of her father, who was killed in mankind's initial encounter with the insect race Humanity is at war with. It is because of her father's death that Noriko wants to become a combat pilot. But her lack of confidence proves to get in the way at times and she falters. Her friend, Kazumi Amano, even has doubts about Noriko being chosen as a pilot. However, Noriko's coach, Koichiro Ota, has faith in her. And he has made it his personal mission to see that she succeeds at becoming a pilot, for he was a survivor of the battle in which Noriko's father was killed.

Other characters include Jung-Freud, a Russian combat pilot assigned to serve with the squadron Noriko and Kazumi belong to, Smith Toren, a love interest for Noriko who is killed in their first sortie together, and Kimiko Higuchi, Noriko's childhood friend. Kimiko's involvement is also of interest, as while Noriko is off in space, Kimiko remains behind on Earth to live a normal life. And because of the acts of time dilation, Kimiko ages normally on Earth while Noriko is relatively the same age as when she left school. By the end of the series, Noriko is roughly 18 years old while Kimiko is in her mid-fifties.

All in all, this is an excellent anime series to watch if you are a fan of giant robot mecha and of Gainax animation. If you like Hideaki Anno's other shows, or are a fan of Haruhiko Mikimoto's artwork, then give this show a chance. It will grow on you.@@@1 +For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.@@@0 +terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion@@@1 +Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.@@@0 +Very entertaining, and a great cast as noted. I'd like to add that Bruce Dern did a fine job also, as is usually the case. Worth renting if you can find it, which has proved difficult for me. Also note that the Amazon link from this page currently goes to a different movie of the same name.@@@1 +Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.@@@0 +Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.

There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.

And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that.@@@1 +I watched the movie, and was dismayed to say the least that the movie failed to communicate with me as an audience. The language would put to shame the street loafers.

The plot; a father forcing none of his son to marry, seems far-fetched.

The idea of a grandmother asking her grand kid to mess up with an enemy would only draw feeble minded's attention.

...and I was waiting the whole movie for a laugh, and laugh I did on my stupidity to waste 3 hours to convince myself that the movie is not even worth a first look.

Hope it saves YOUR time!@@@0 +Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent.@@@1 +...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.

Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely "Hey, kids, let's make a movie!" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.

It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.

Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to "The Notorious Bettie Page." This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.

Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.@@@0 +What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.@@@1 +This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.

Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.@@@0 +Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest… some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles… some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise… some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.

Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word… but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics… it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them.@@@1 +I'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a "loving" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual "content" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or "point" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...

The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of "re-enactments" of some of Bettie's more "famous" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the "business" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...

DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...4/10@@@0 +Hidden Frontiers-is more than fan fiction- it is well thought out and organized series keeping the worlds of Star Trek alive and growing. From a fun little fan project to now a well known net series; Hidden Frontiers has a bit of something for every star trek fan in it. Set in the Late Star Trek: Next Generation/DS9 and Voyager time lines Hidden Frontier takes on topics and issues raised in other Star Trek series with set stories using a well developed characters, plots, and story arcs. Star Trek Hidden Frontier has taken on social context stories that Gene Roddenberry failed to bring to the screen and has shown the development of characters in long term space assignments - the real things that happen in close quarters as well as an exciting spatial wars and conflicts Sci-Fi addicts know and love. Done in a "Green Screen" studio; Hidden Frontiers brings a rollicking cast of regulars on to the screen and into your hearts. The large ensemble cast of actors plays well together and lovingly gives their time and energy to the project. Inventive use of green screen technology, props, makes up and costumes work to make the Hidden Frontier worlds of Star Trek fun and believable. Hidden Frontier has gone where few tread to go in the world of science fiction, and thrived once they got there. Hidden Frontier offers a wonderful bonus feature of a well thought out website, with interesting discussion forums, access to creative, production and acting staff and a fun weekly chat. I highly recommend taking the time to down load and watch.@@@1 +This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its "world premiere." I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end.

Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say "wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie." this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory.

I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes "Dude, Where's My Car?" look like Citizen Kane.

My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the "world premiere" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.@@@0 +This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.

I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.

If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.@@@1 +The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.@@@0 +With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.

Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9.@@@1 +They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.@@@0 +Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10.@@@1 +The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.@@@0 +Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!@@@1 +In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.@@@0 +I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it@@@1 +I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.

Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.@@@0 +Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen.

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly.

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better.

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock!

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.@@@1 +IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!@@@0 +I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.

Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.@@@1 +As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.

It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.

This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.@@@0 +This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.

Make it so...@@@1 +This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.

This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.@@@0 +Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out!

I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!

Good work to all concerned!

(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)

It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?

Really glad I found it!

(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)

The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.

Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!

I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza

"Never give up, never surender!"

Viva les frontieres@@@1 +One of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.

First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like "The Good Earth", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. "Gold or Grain" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.@@@0 +For the record, I am not affiliated with the production in any way.

Hidden Frontier is probably the Star Trek fan film with the most episodes produced to date. Over 7 seasons (this is the last) they have produced some 50 or so episodes.

This is no mean feat on almost no budget and everyone volunteering their time and energy.

By their own admission, the earlier seasons do not have as good production qualities as later ones but as they progress the effects, green screen work and acting all improve.

I did find it difficult to "dip into" so started from the beginning and watched all the way through. HF benefits from story arcs just like all the best sci fi and dovetails nicely into the Star Trek universe in which it is set. Characters and "relatives" from the original series have been brought into the stories and add a lot to the feel of the stories, sometimes improving on the characters over the original.

The whole experience includes an excellent web site, blooper reels, a high membership forum which is frequented by many of the actors and production staff and a weekly chat.

If you are looking for high definition, high budget productions, this is probably not for you.

If you are looking for continued adventures in the Star Trek universe with stories that does Star Trek credit and makes you think, this is the one.@@@1 +As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.

The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock?

Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.@@@0 +Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is a long-running internet only fan film, done completely for the love of the series, and a must watch for fans of Trek. The production quality is extremely high for a fan film, although sometimes you can tell that they're green-screenin' it. This doesn't take away from the overall experience however. The CGI ships are fantastic, as well as the space battle scenes... On the negative side, I could tell in the earlier episodes (and even occasionally in the newer ones) that some of the actors/actresses are not quite comfortable in their roles, but once again, this doesn't take away from the overall experience of new interpretations of Star Trek. The cast and crew have truly come up with something special here, and, as a whole,I would highly recommend this series to fans of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9.@@@1 +I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.@@@0 +Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.@@@1 +By reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 10@@@0 +Hidden Frontier is notable for being the longest running internet-based Star Trek fan series. While the production quality is not on a par with fan productions like Starship Exeter, or New Voyages, Hidden Frontier concentrates largely on story, and in that regard it does very well indeed.

Hidden Frontier has no physical sets; instead actors are filmed against a greenscreen, and the backgrounds inserted digitally. One of Hidden Frontier's greatest achievements is the sheer volume of work they have produced. One of the ways in which this is achieved is by inserting the virtual sets at the time of filming, instead of in post-production. While this does save a great deal of time, it's also worth noting that the quality of the resultant footage is not as high as if it had been produced in post-production, though it still serves its purpose.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, Hidden Frontier is well worth a shot, though you might be best to start off watching the third season, since this is where the producers really start to hit their stride.@@@1 +Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.@@@0 +I really enjoyed this one, and although the ending made me angry, I still give it 10 out of 10.

Four college girls (Baltron, Kelly, Stahl and Cadby) are driving down to Florida, on their way they meet 2 guys (Turner, Davis), they really add nothing to the plot, but are at least somewhat likable. The girls agree to meet the guys in Florida for some fun, but they have car problems and never make it. One of the girls decides to go to a nearby gas station for help, the other three stay by the car.

Soon one of the girls has to use the bathroom, being in the middle of nowhere she has no choice but to go in the bushes. Soon she witnesses as a man (March) strangles a woman, in terror the girl flees the area, she doesn't get very far, but manages to get lost.

Her friends by the car go looking for her, they too go into the woods and run into the same man, one of them sees the dead woman, the man responds by shooting the girls head off, the other girl runs away, manages to make it back to the car where she is also killed.

Eventually the two remaining girls find each other and because they break into the gas station get arrested. This is when I started getting mad, these poor girls are afraid for their lives and the redneck cops don't believe them.

They are treated badly and one of them is left alone for the madman to kill her in the cell, the remaining friend manages to escape, but not without getting in dangerous situations.

This movie has nudity, good actresses, a shower scene imitating Psycho, graphic violence towards women and solid story. Some women will probably find it offensive and sensitive individuals will NOT like the ending, but over all, this is a great little unknown movie.@@@1 +I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision.@@@0 +Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though.@@@1 +Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though.@@@0 +I acquired this, one of my all-time favourite films on DVD recently and as usual, during viewing, the whole thing just blew me away.

I am a massive fan of Hazel O'Connor and the soundtrack to this film just has me in tears, especially the "Will You" track. It's a pure nostalgia trip for me back to my youth. This rates second best to Quadrophenia (which also starred Phil Daniels).

A great soundtrack and a great view of Britain in the Thatcherite years of the grim 80's in which I grew up. The ending is so sad, for hours after the end of the film I am like a blubbering baby.

I expect to wear out this DVD from repeated viewing, I can watch it over and over again and never be bored, simply for the soundtrack alone.

Hazel, sorry to hear about your dad darling. God Bless you all. xx@@@1 +If you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.

After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.

Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.

Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.

Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.

Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even "the Phantom Menace" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.

I would have to give this movie a "0" out of "10". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.@@@0 +Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well.@@@1 +I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys@@@0 +I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry!@@@1 +In short, this movie is completely worthless.

The idea is to make movie from the point of view of what someone from the early 1900s might think of the future. An interesting idea, but the lack of compelling story or characters prevents us from ever suspending our disbelief, so the idea just flops.

Apparently the whole movie was done with actors in front of green screens and we are supposed to be impressed. But as a graphics person, the over softening was an obvious crutch for hiding the difficult sharp edge problem with green screening. The color is majorly washed out to no relevant effect except reduce the visual quality. And I don't understand why anyone would consider anything rendered in this movie to be in any way ground breaking. If anything, the ridiculous retrograde graphics have lowered the bar for really bad graphics -- they don't measure up even to the ancient Jurassic Park graphics. The models for the robots were so simple, plain and very uncompelling. There were a bunch of weirdo prehistoric-like animals on that island, but they are not explained in any way.

The story is horrible beyond belief. In fact I can't believe I didn't just walk out of this movie. The relationship between Polly and Joe is unmotivated, and throughout the movie is based on distrust and deception. Why is the Morris Paley character even there? We are not in any way convinced that Joe is heroic -- I mean he flies a plane, and saved one person (Polly) for personal reasons. Yeah there's a great hero for you. Dex has very little screen time, so why are we supposed to care about Joe wanting to save him? Who were the Nepalease that locked Joe and Polly in the mine vault, and why would they do it (remembering that the entire Totenkopf operation was robotic)?

Plot holes: (1) Why did Bai Ling's character (a major fall from her excellent character in "The Crow") halt the robots who had captured Joe? They were looking for the vials, and had not found them. (2) Why in the hell would Dex be captured but not killed (he doesn't have or know about the vials, and the bad guys didn't know that Polly had the vials and was connected to Joe and therefore to Dex)? (3) Polly indicates that "they" don't know anything about Totenkopf, yet she has some secret source about him that contains what appears to be a fairly complete FBI-style file on him. (4) The blank spot on the map as described by the Nepalese -- if they know all about this mysterious area, then why the hell is their map blank in that spot? (5) At one point, Polly and Joe have to give up their clothes (they are burned) -- Joe is given new clothes that were identical to his old clothes, yet Polly is forced to wear some very odd looking bulky dress, then in the same line of continuity suddenly Polly has her original clothes back.

*sigh*. How far off am I supposed to switch my brain to watch this crap?

We are supposed to be exhilarated by the over produced music, even when nothing interesting or remotely exhilarating is happening on screen.

And the acting? We're supposed to be impressed with a bunch of bad British accents? Which character isn't annoying? I think Ling Bai's dialogue was probably the best in the whole movie (she doesn't have a single line). The dialogue wasn't camp, and doesn't even rise to the level of cheese. Its just bad and annoying. These people aren't hero's or compelling; they are the kind of people you would try to ignore or disassociate with if you ever had the misfortune of meeting them in real life.

I can't believe that this movie gets an above average rating here on IMDb. IMHO it should be competing with "Batman Forever" in the bottom 100 of all time.@@@0 +One of my best films ever, maybe because i was well into the punk scene in the late 70s and went to many of hazels concerts, but the film was a good story line and very good acting by hazel and a up and coming Phil Daniels not sure about his latest project Eastenders !! excellent performance by lots of unknown actors who if you keep your eyes peeled will see them in many of the UK soaps today exp: Carver out of the Bill, the more i watch it the more of them i spot, well if you have not seen it yet have a night in with the video, don't forget to dig out the safety pin for your nose and heavy black eye makeup and shave your head Mochanian style....Enjoy@@@1 +When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.

The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.

The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10@@@0 +I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.@@@1 +I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.

Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.

Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".

On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.

Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.

The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.@@@0 +Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!!@@@1 +The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.@@@0 +I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.

Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.

If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.

@@@1 +This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.@@@0 +Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter.@@@1 +A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.

The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.

But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.

The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.@@@0 +I have just watched the whole 6 episodes on DVD. The acting throughout is excellent - no question. There was not quite enough action for me I must say. No real suspense as such, just plenty of first class character development. Nothing like Tinker Tailor in terms of "whodunnit". If you like a good story slowly and carefully told then this is for you. Peter Egan as the lead Magnus Pym is excellent.

The film portrayed the life of a traitor. A man who should have been a loyal member of the British Intelligence Service but who was so damaged psychologically by his unhappy childhood that deception became his way of life in all things. As a child he adored his father but his father was exposed time & time again as a crook and a con man. Pym betrayed not for ideology or money but because he needed to deceive those closest to him (wife, son, mentor). Pym is fatally damaged by his father's influence - it has eaten his moral fibre away. He has no real love or loyalty in him.

Heavy psychological stuff and not many light moments in the 6 hour series. Very well done though.@@@1 +Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.@@@0 +I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?@@@1 +The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.@@@0 +Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.

In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.

Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all.

Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.

Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him.

And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues!

Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.

His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.

The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.

Indeed well worth the money!@@@1 +I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film.@@@0 +As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.@@@1 +Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.

'Should have' being the key term here, of course.

Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.

Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.

The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.

Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.@@@0 +This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.@@@1 +"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.

One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.

I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.

The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't.

As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.

I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.@@@0 +This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.

If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.

There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.

I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.@@@1 +Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.@@@0 +It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time.

Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.

The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.

Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.

Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.

The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English.

The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.

Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date.

Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.@@@1 +"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.@@@0 +This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.@@@1 +In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.

The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.

The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.

Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.@@@0 +Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.@@@1 +What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain.." about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!@@@0 +Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.@@@1 +This movie feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.

The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...

Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...

THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...@@@0 +Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.

Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!@@@1 +I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.

The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.@@@0 +Well, if you are looking for a great mind control movie, this is it. No movie has had so many gorgeous women under mind control, and naked. Marie Forsa, as the busty Helga, is under just about everytime she falls asleep and a few times when she isn't. One wishes they made more movies like this one.@@@1 +I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.@@@0 +Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema.@@@1 +I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.@@@0 +Well the story is a little hard to follow the first time, but that's only because of all the bare breasted '70s painted-up vampire/witches dancing to the bongo drums. This of course interrupted by a few vampiric orgies. And there are some very interesting candles and uses for them. And for girl on girl action, vampiric or not...this movie just rocks!!!@@@1 +This movie should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?

This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.

it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!

ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!

@@@0 +This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!@@@1 +To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.

The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...

*My rate: 4/10@@@0 +THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.

This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...

THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10@@@1 +Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.@@@0 +This is an excellent show! I had a US history teacher in high school that was much like this. There are many "facts" in history that are not quite true and Mr Wuhl points them out very well, in a way that is unforgettable.

Mr Wuhl is teaching a class of film students but history students and even the general public will appreciate the witty way that he uncovers some very well known fallacies in the history of the world and strive to impress them upon that brains of his students. Use of live actors performing "skits" is also very entertaining.

I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in having the history they learned as a child turned upside down.@@@1 +For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.@@@0 +this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following@@@1 +I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".

Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.

The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.

I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.

They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.

A real mess of a film from start to finish.@@@0 +I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.

I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.@@@1 +There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.

The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.

Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.

There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.

My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.

Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.@@@0 +I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.

It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.

I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode.@@@1 +Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...@@@0 +Robert Wuhl is teaching a class of film students at New York University in Manhattan, New York.

He covers fallacies of history and truths that are no longer generally known. I would like to see much more of this show. It is very entertaining. Mr. Wuhl uses examples and "show and tell" to get his points across. He explained that the person who actually rode the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere was not Paul Revere! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow used Revere's name because it sounded better.

I've watched Robert Wuhl for many years, from the time he was doing stand-up comedy and all the way through "Arli$$" on HBO. He's a good actor and a good stand-up comedian, but he's an excellent teacher! I highly recommend that you watch an episode of this show. It is well worth your time.@@@1 +Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."

The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"

Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."

The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"

Please.@@@0 +Jane Porter's former love interest Harry Holt(Neil Hamilton) and his friend Martin (Paul Cavanagh) come to Tarzan's hidden away jungle escarpment searching for the ivory gold mine that is the "Elephant's Graveyard" first seen in TARZAN, THE APE MAN...only we soon discover both men have hidden intentions...namely Jane. Will Tarzan stand for that? Not likely (in fact Tarzan won't even stand for any disturbance done to the "Elephant's Graveyard") and knowing this Martin attempts to take Tarzan out of the picture only he later finds himself in a world of trouble later he and his party (including Jane who leaves with them after she believes Tarzan is dead)is captured by a native tribe intent on feeding them to the lions..will Tarzan be will and able enough to get to them in time?

This film is adventure filled with loads of scenes involving Tarzan and other facing down wild animals and a climax that grips the viewer's interest and doesn't let up. The cruelty displayed towards animals and the portrayal of native people may disturb some today but all should remember this is basically fantasy adventure entertainment and shouldn't be taken so seriously.@@@1 +I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.@@@0 +Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.

In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.@@@1 +Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.

I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.@@@0 +My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.@@@1 +I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.@@@0 +Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.@@@1 +I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.

And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.

Avoid this film like the plague.@@@0 +Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.@@@1 +We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script@@@0 +108: Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - released 4/20/1934, viewed 8/6/08.

John Dillinger escapes from prison and robs a bank in Iowa. Bonnie & Clyde kill two highway patrolman in Texas. BIRTHS: Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Alan Arkin, Richard Chamberlain.

DOUG: After we were rather disappointed with the original 'Tarzan the Ape Man,' we discovered among fellow users and historians that the second film, 'Tarzan and his Mate,' was the best in the series. It's true. I got a huge kick out of this movie. Johnny Weismuller returns as the titular vine-swinging, animal dueling wild super-hero, and Maureen O'Sullivan reprises her role as his entirely fantastic lady love Jane (who sports a two-piece outfit for the first and last time here). In my review for 'Ape Man,' I stomped on Jane pretty good for her obsession with clothes and her incessant screaming, but she's redeemed herself for me here. Make no mistake: O'Sullivan is the star of this movie, and Jane is the most capable character in the entire cast. She acts as the ambassador between Holt and Tarzan, she can function perfectly in the jungle and get along with the animals, and she knows how to hold off an angry pride of lions when she's out of bullets. She's even got her own jungle scream now. The chemistry between Johnny and Maureen is irresistible. She's totally got him trained. Cheeta is quite charming as well, taking drags off of Martin's cigarette. The plot is mostly an excuse for Tarzan to do battle with the jungle's most vicious animals, especially lions, crocodiles, and rhinos. The effects, though always visible, are much more dynamic and cool and complement the action nicely. Oh, and you can't talk about this movie without talking about the nude swimming scene. All I can say is: yes, she is naked. Very exciting stuff.

KEVIN: Wow. Just wow. When it comes to down-and-dirty pre-code action/adventure, nothing holds a candle to 'Tarzan and His Mate.' The inevitable sequel to Tarzan the Ape Man is a kick-ass, violent and risqué jungle epic. I doubt there will be another Tarzan movie in the future that takes no prisoners the way this one does. You'd be hard pressed to find a full scene in this movie that would be Code-approved, or Animal Rights-approved for that matter. The gruesome violence doesn't even wait for the happy jungle couple to show up before it pushes even the limits of today's adventure movies. And after T&J enter the picture, there's plenty of early morning cuddling and ass-naked afternoon swims. See it for yourself if you don't believe me. I love Maureen O'Sullivan most of all in this film. In the first film, Jane seemed like a walking contradiction, like the writers back then just didn't know how to portray a character like that. But here she is a great precursor to kick-butt females of later cinema. Although she still requires Tarzan's assistance in getting her out of most jams, she does a lot more than just waiting around to be rescued. Her personality is perfectly believable for a woman who has been living (relatively) comfortably in the jungle for a year. I watched this with my Mom, and I enjoyed pointing out to her just how much Jane has Tarzan "trained," as Jeff Foxworthy put it. She totally has the ape man at her every beck and call. Although there is a host of dated optical effects throughout the film, there is still plenty of hair-raising Tarzan vs. predator battles that are performed (mostly) for real. That and the men-dressed-as-apes are a lot more convincing this time around. **SPOILER** The film climaxes as the jungle erupts with a shocking orgy of animal kingdom violence that leaves Tarzan and Jane the only two humans still breathing. Although the couple rides off into the sunset reunited and victorious, I can't help but imagine how this story will seem to the next safari who will hear about the previous bunch of humans who went to find Tarzan and Jane and were never heard from again. **END SPOILER** One of things that still bothers me is Johnny Weissmuller's smooth, hairless bod and over-styled coif. Other than that, this is pre-Code action-adventure that is absolutely not to be missed.

Last film: It Happened One Night (1934). Next film: Twentieth Century (1934).@@@1 +...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.

@@@0 +A year after losing gorgeous Jane Parker (Maureen O'Sullivan) to love rival Tarzan, hunter Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungle to have another bash at winning the brunette babe's heart. Mixing business with pleasure, he also plans to grab himself some ivory from the elephant graveyard that lies beyond the Mutia escarpment, Tarzan's stomping ground.

Accompanied by his slimy, womanising pal Martin Arlington and a group of expendable bearers, Harry finally arrives at his destination (having narrowly avoided death at the hands of savage natives and rock-hurling apes) only to find that Jane is still infatuated with her musclebound yodeller, and worse still, that Tarzan is refusing to let the hunters take any ivory from the graveyard.

Nasty Arlington decides to resolve matters by ambushing and shooting the ape-man and then telling Jane and Holt that Tarzan was attacked and eaten by a crocodile. Of course, Tarzan isn't dead—only wounded; after being nursed back to health by Cheetah (!), he swings back into action just in time to rescue Jane from a tribe of vicious lion-eating savages who have attacked Holt's expedition.

Tarzan And His Mate, the second movie to star Weismuller as the jungle man of few words, is often cited by fans as the best of the series; although I slightly prefer the original, I can definitely understand the film's popularity: it's damn sexy and there are some great action sequences! The undeniable chemistry between Weismuller and O'Sullivan is fabulous and leads to some pretty steamy scenes, and with both stars wearing eensy-weensy outfits throughout, there's eye-candy aplenty for viewers of both sexes to enjoy (despite O'Sullivan's much-touted underwater nude scene actually being performed by a body double, the lovely lass still shows plenty of skin, even threatening to do a 'Sharon Stone' at one point as her loin cloth flaps to one side!).

The film's most exciting moments come in the form of a wonderful underwater fight between Tarzan and a crocodile, and the spectacular finalé where Jane is attacked by lions and natives, but is rescued by her beau, his monkey pals, and a load of elephants in full-on lion-crushing mode (once again, the violence is surprisingly nasty at times, although as far as I am concerned, there is nothing quite as shocking as the vicious pygmies and their gorilla pit from the first film). Cheetah also has his fair share of excitement, dodging rhinos, crocs, and big cats, riding on Tarzan's back as he crosses a river, and even hopping onto an ostrich for a ride.

Like it's predecessor, Tarzan And His Mate does suffer slightly from some bad effects and unconvincing props—dodgy back projection, a few laughable monkey suits, more Indian elephants masquerading as their African cousins, and poorly disguised trapeze swings—but these shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of this very entertaining film. If anything, they make it even more fun!

8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.@@@1 +How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!@@@0 +One of the best Tarzan films is also one of its most action packed (and graphic).

Picking up a year or so after Tarzan the Ape Man, Niel Hamilton's Holt has asked a rich friend to finance a safari back to the elephants graveyard to collect ivory. His Friend arrives also carrying dresses and perfumes that Holt hopes to use to win Jane back from Tarzan. Before they can leave Holt finds his map stolen and it becomes a mad dash to try and capture a competing expedition. When they finally over take the thieves they find the whole party dead and themselves surrounded. They have no choice but to fight their way out and soon find they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. Eventually Tarzan and Jane show up and everyone is off on even more adventures.

Infamous film was heavily censored to reduce the graphic violence (Its graphic even by todays standards. It probably would get a PG 13) and to remove all hint of nudity, (there is a several minute long nude swim scene involving Jane that is full frontal in its nudity, it was only recently restored). Its clear watching the restored version why this film was reduced by 20 minutes in its run time for TV. As it stands in its restored version this is a very adult film that is romantic, touching, action filled and everything else that a movie should be. Its an amazing film by almost any standard. Best of all its the sort of film that plays well both as a stand alone adventure, one need not to have seen the first film to enjoy it, but its also a film that deepens the characters and themes that were set up in that original film. Its an amazing thing.

I really like this film a great deal.

If there are any flaws to the film, its perhaps that the film hasn't aged well. The rear screen is often very obvious, there are gorilla suits for many of the apes and some of the other effects are more quaint rather than convincing. However on almost every other level this film is top notch.

You really owe it to yourself to see this. Make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up on the couch and just let yourself drift back to a simpler time. This is one of the great adventures.@@@1 +Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...

First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!

I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!

Are you getting the picture?@@@0 +I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.@@@1 +This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.@@@0 +Hard to believe, perhaps, but this film was denounced as immoral from more pulpits than any other film produced prior to the imposition of the bluenose Hayes Code. Yes indeed, priests actually told their flocks that anyone who went to see this film was thereby committing a mortal sin.

I'm not making this up. They had several reasons, as follows:

Item: Jane likes sex. She and Tarzan are shown waking up one morning in their treetop shelter. She stretches sensuously, and with a coquettish look she says "Tarzan, you've been a bad boy!" So they've not only been having sex, they've been having kinky sex! A few years later, under the Hays Code, people (especially women) weren't supposed to be depicted as enjoying sex.

Item: Jane prefers a guileless, if wise and resourceful, savage (Tarzan) to a civilized, respectable nine-to-five man (Holt). When Holt at first wows her with a pretty dress from London, she wavers a bit; when Holt tries to kill Tarzan, and Holt and Jane both believe he's dead, she wavers a lot. But when she realizes her man is very much alive, the attractions of civilization vanish for her. And why not? Tarzan's and Jane's relationship is egalitarian: He lacks the "civilized" insecurity that would compel him to assert himself as "the head of his wife". To boot, he lacks many more "civilized" hangups, for example jealousy. When Holt and his buddy arrive, Tarzan greets them both cordially, knowing perfectly well that Holt is Jane's old flame. When Holt gets her dolled up in a London dress and is slow-dancing with her to a portable phonograph, Tarzan drops out of a tree, and draws his knife. Jealous? Nope. He's merely cautious toward the weird music machine, since he's never seen one before. Once it's explained, he's cool.

Item: Civilized Holt is dirty minded. Savage Tarzan is innocently sexy. As Jane slips into Holt's lamplit tent, Holt gets off on watching her silhouette as she changes into the fancy dress. By contrast, after Tarzan playfully pulls the dress off, kicks her into the swimming hole and dives in after her, there follows the most tastefully erotic nude scene in all cinema: the pair spends five minutes in a lovely water ballet.(The scene was filmed in three versions--clothed, topless and nude--the scene was cut prior to the film's release, but the nude version is restored in the video now available.) And when Jane emerges, and Cheetah the chimp steals her dress just for a tease, Jane makes it clear that her irritation is only because of the proximity of "civilized" men and their hangups. Where is the "universal prurience" so dear to the hearts of seminarians? Nowhere, that's where. Another reason why the hung up regarded this film as sinful.

Item: The notion that man is the crown of creation, and animals are here only for man's use and comfort, takes a severe beating. Holt and his buddy want to be guided to the "elephant graveyard" so they can scoop up the ivory and take it home. They want Tarzan to guide them to said graveyard. You, reader, are thinking "Fat chance!" and you're right. He's shocked. He exclaims "Elephants sleep!" which to him explains everything. Jane explains Tarzan's feelings, which the two "gentlemen" find ridiculous.

Item: Jane, the ex-civilized woman, is far more resourceful than the two civilized men she accompanies. Holt and buddy blow it, and find themselves besieged by hostile tribes and wild animals. It is Jane who maintains her cool. While the boys panic, she takes charge, barks orders at them and passes out the rifles.

Item: Jane's costume is a sort of poncho with nothing underneath. (The original idea was for her to be topless, with foliage artistically blocking off her nipples, which indeed is the case in one brief scene.)

Lastly, several men of the cloth complained because the film was called "Tarzan and His Mate" rather than "Tarzan and His Wife." No comment!

Of course, Tarzan, who has been nursed back to health by his ape friends, comes to the rescue, routs the white hunters, and induces the pack elephants and African bearers to return the ivory they stole to the sacred place whence it came. The End.

So there you have it. An utterly subversive film. Like all the other films about complex and interesting women (see, e.g., Possessed with Rita Hayworth and Raymond Massey) which constituted such a flowing genre in the early 30's and which were brought to such an abrupt end by the adoption of the Hays Code.

The joie de vivre of this film is best expressed by Jane's soprano version of the famous Tarzan yell. A nice touch, which was unfortunately abandoned in future productions.

Let's hear it for artistic freedom, feminist Jane, and sex.@@@1 +I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.

I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.

I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film.@@@0 +Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!@@@1 +There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!@@@0 +The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.@@@1 +this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....@@@0 +In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.@@@1 +Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!@@@0 +I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.

One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.

The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.

Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.

The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.

What direction! What camera! What storytelling!@@@1 +Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.@@@0 +A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout)@@@1 +This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!@@@0 +This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.@@@1 +I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski.

As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.

Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....

Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........@@@0 +This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.

As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.

Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.

There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.

For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.

I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.

There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.

The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.

All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.@@@1 +In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade – Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes – but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.

When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd.@@@0 +"Tarzan and His Mate", the second of MGM's Tarzan pictures, picks up a year after the events of "Tarzan the Ape Man". Tarzan and Jane have been living happily in the jungle, and Harry Holt (one of the expeditioners in the first film) returns, this time accompanied by the less-than-honorable Martin Arlington, in quest of the ivory from the elephants' graveyard. Naturally, a variety of perilous and exciting adventures take place along the way.

The first film romanticized everything--the jungle, adventure, romance itself, wild animals, and even death. The second film still has a great deal of romanticism and a lot of wonderful action sequences, but a more serious tone underlies the action. The characters dare to ask questions like: What if something happened to Tarzan? What would Jane do if she was stranded by herself in the middle of the jungle and she had to fend for herself? While these are probably the questions real people would be asking in this situation, it creates a certain amount of somberness that isn't always as much fun as the throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude of the original.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this film is the growth we see in Tarzan and Jane's relationship. Tarzan still speaks very broken English, but he has clearly learned a few new words from his mate. Additionally, their love for each other has really blossomed, and we feel like they really have spent a year together in the jungle.

Most people consider "Tarzan and His Mate" superior to the original "Tarzan the Ape Man". Personally, I liked the first film just a little bit better. The main reason is that the relationship between the Harry Holt & Martin Arlington team isn't nearly as likable as Holt's relationship with James Parker (Jane's father) from the original. The Mr. Arlington character could have worked as a great movie villain, but he plays the hero for far too much of the movie. The movie can never decide whether we should like him or hate him. (Also, I don't want to give anything away, but in one of the scenes where we should clearly hate him, Jane never finds out about those events, so the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been.) All of these detractors are relatively minor, however, and it's still a great movie.

Like the first film, "Tarzan and His Mate" has amazing action scenes, wonderful wildlife footage, and one of the screen's all-time greatest romances. If you liked the first film in the series, this is definitely a sequel to see.@@@1 +I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.@@@0 +When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.

As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.

O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day.

"Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).

Good for Jane and her mate!@@@1 +I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.

I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.

The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.@@@0 +Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their "boys." People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.@@@1 +I read James Hawes book. It was pretty neat, not great, but entertaining enough. Without having read the book I wouldn't have had the slightest idea what was going on, and it was still a stretch with that knowledge.

Literally every element of this film is abysmal in ways I do not have the capacity to describe. Half digested fish could have made a better film with matchsticks and dayglo lipstick.

Never before or since as a film made me feel so angry. The Mattress sequels came closest, but even they never reached such depths of utterly putrid nauseating appallingness that this bilge did.

Since wasting 90 minutes of my life witnessing this plague on human kind I am now unable to even look at any book by James Hawes without feeling angry. That is the depth of hatred I have for this piece of sh*t. No, that's unfair. Let me apologise to all fecal matter for comparing you to the otherworldly evil that is Rancid Aluminium.

Plain and simply a cancer on the world of cinema.@@@0 +I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.

After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.

One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.

The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.

It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie.@@@1 +Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.

@@@0 +As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic.@@@1 +This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated

To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained

Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely@@@0 +Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.

Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.

Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.

There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.

Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.@@@1 +In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10@@@0 +There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended.@@@1 +Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.

Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.@@@0 +Although the recent re-telling of part of Homer's epic "Troy" with Brad Pitt was entertaining once, "Iphigenia" with the incandescent Irene Pappas is breathtaking. Unfolding in a natural setting with Greek actors speaking their own language lends such authenticity. A chance encounter with this film on one of DirecTV's many movie channels kept me interested in spite of my concentration problems. There is no glitter or "bling" in this movie, just a fabulously rich story impeccably told by actors so real one feels they are eavesdropping on a real family in turmoil. I think even Homer, if he really existed, would be proud of this telling.

JLH@@@1 +This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.

In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and "art" film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.

If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.@@@0 +The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!

The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.

MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!

The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).

Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?

While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.

TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!@@@1 +By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.@@@0 +Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings.

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.@@@1 +Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it.

To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...

Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.@@@0 +I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com@@@1 +Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.

The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.

After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.

At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.

Made on a budget of 75 cents.@@@0 +William Wyler was to have directed this adaptation of Moss Hart's hit Broadway play with music/ recruiting poster-vivant, but his own military commitments intervened and it went to a most unlikely helmsman: George Cukor. The "women's director" has a sure touch on the many documentary-like sequences of Air Corps training, and he invests it with more unhackneyed humanity than the genre generally allowed, particularly in wartime. Sure, the gee-whiz (and entirely white, save for one unbilled Chinese-American recruit) bunch of newbies are nicer and more wholesome than in real life, and the speechifying about home and Mom and the wife and kid gets pretty thick, but it's efficient propaganda and undeniably stirring. Notable, too, for the all-military male cast, several of whom didn't reemerge for years: Lon McAllister, Edmond O'Brien, Martin Ritt, Red Buttons (in drag, as an Andrews Sister), Peter Lind Hayes, Karl Malden, Kevin McCarthy, Gary Merrill, Lee J. Cobb, and Don Taylor. Also for a very early glimpse of Judy Holliday, who doesn't show up till an hour and a half into the picture but has some good little sequences as O'Brien's worried-sick Brooklyn spouse. Too bad its rights are in a tangle and the only print anyone knows of is 16mm; evidently, after Twentieth Century Fox released it (to considerable success), the rights reverted to the Army, and if there's a good 35mm print out there, it probably lies somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon. It's disingenuous and corny in spots, but it also captures the rigors of military training and the terrors of war vividly, and it deserves to be more widely seen.@@@1 +This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.

As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.

Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.

But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians.

So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.@@@0 +This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do.@@@1 +OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.@@@0 +This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.@@@1 +I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.

Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.

Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given:

If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.

Approach wild animals without any fear.

You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.

and my favorite, the final message left in the film:

It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.@@@0 +I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.

Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun.

In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka@@@1 +This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl – Helen Selleck – is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.@@@0 +This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.

The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.

Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.

The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).

So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.@@@1 +Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.

***MAJOR SPOILER***

The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.

The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.@@@0 +The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.

Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.

Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.

This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.@@@1 +This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.@@@0 +Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...

Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic.@@@1 +The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.

While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".

It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.@@@0 +With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.

The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.

No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.

Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.

The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.

The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.

This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.

The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.

Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.

Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film.@@@1 +I've seen this film because I had do (my job includes seeing movies of all kinds). I couldn't stop thinking "who gave money to make such an awful film and also submit it to Cannes Festival!" It wasn't only boring, the actors were awful as well. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.@@@0 +EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.

A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating).@@@1 +This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity@@@0 +Ossessione

Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable.@@@1 +1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiancé and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....@@@0 +Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.

The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.

In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.

There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.

All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.@@@1 +Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!@@@0 +Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.

The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.

Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.

Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.

8/10@@@1 +Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.

This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.@@@0 +Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.@@@1 +A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.

Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.

How much longer can this madness continue?@@@0 +I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.@@@1 +William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).

Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide...

**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage@@@0 +When people nowadays hear of a 1940s drama, they usually appear to create a distance of irony claiming that it's another tearjerker with great stars in the lead of tragic, melancholic roles. This opinion, however, does not resemble Neorealist movies, in particular this one directed by Count Luchino Visconti. OSSESSIONE as his debut once censored and once cherished as nearly a realistic masterpiece is still loved by some people and strongly criticized by others. The contradictory opinions about the film that have appeared in these 65 years seem to have been caused by the content of the movie itself, exceptionally controversial for modern times as well as the past. At the same time, while being based on the novel by James M. Cain, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, it is one of the most genuine screen adaptations where director remains his own style, view, his own art. I have seen the film twice and the second viewing led me to very detailed analysis part of which I'd like to entail below.

First, Visconti's movie seems to touch all psychology and actions that people may do in life, in particular those absorbed by desire. These people make such tragic decisions in spite of terrible consequences they are bound to face. Gino (Massimo Girotti) a traveler with "bear like shoulders" turns up at the crossroad of a motorway near Ferrara and enters the tavern. Although many people go there to have a meal, Gino occurs to get something more - much more: the indefatigable desire of beautiful Giovanna (Clara Calamai) a woman already married to an elderly man who runs the bar, Mr Giuseppe Bragana (Juan De Landa). Her body and her song possess his mind totally and from the moment of their first love, the couple plan to get rid of the old obstacle and build up a new life together... However, are people bound to wrong deeds in face of desire? Can one build love upon murder? What is love and what is loyalty? Does desire lead to a dangerous addiction or even obsession? Such questions intensely arise while watching the movie, when, to the core, the viewer is supplied with an insight into characters. "We have to love each other affectionately" answers Giovanna seemingly giving a cure to all crying conscience but may desirous love justify and cure everything? "Isn't it what we both wanted" says one of the couple... it occurs that it's not. Therefore, the content of the film appears to be very dangerous if not analyzed with intellect and heart. Yet, it constantly remains thought provoking.

Second, OSSESSIONE has a very strong point that talks to modern viewers: brilliant moments and marvelous cinematography, which go in pair with memorable sequences and visual power. These make a modern viewer realize that a film made almost 70 years ago is absolutely entertaining to watch. They range from tasteful erotic images to purely technical shots. Who can possibly skip that moment in Ferrara where Gino meets a beautiful girl, a sort of "Ragazza Perfetta" (perfect girl), a dancer Anita and buys her ice cream. His desires show him totally different direction... Do viewers remain indifferent at Gino-Giovanna's first meeting? The first focus of camera is on Giovanna's legs seemingly representing carnal desire over love that Gino experiences. A marvel of shot is Gino and Giovanna leaving the investigation room and the closeup of their shadows that directs our attention towards their suspicious look.

Third, OSSESSIONE can boast outstanding performances both from the leading pair as well as the supporting cast. Massimo Girotti once said in an interview that working in this movie had been one of the most difficult jobs he had ever done; yet, consequently, what comes out is a flawless acting. He portrays a bisexual man torn within desires who commits a crime but cannot stand any of the objects that remind him of his victim, which represents conscience. His bisexuality is indicated through the character of Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo) whom he meets in very surprising circumstances in the train for Ancona. Clara Calamai, who was cast in the role after eminent Anna Magnani had refused, fits very well to the role and we may claim that there is a true chemistry between the couple. They are both very convincing. Besides, I liked Juan De Langa in the role of Bragana: he portrays an old husband not affectionate to his wife and still crazy about high art. In some of his most witty moments, he asks his wife to wash his back or walks in the empty streets singing his favorite opera songs after sort of karaoke performance.

In sum, we, as modern viewers who are capable of critical view, have to look at this film very objectively. It is art for sure thanks to the aspects aforementioned, it is a powerful story as well thanks to the controversy it carries; yet, is it educational? Visconti was not Fellini who said that he did not carry any message for humanity. In such case, his films would only entertain (which is, of course, not entirely Fellini's style, too). Visconti always had something to convey. What did he want to say here? Is the film against bad marriage? Or is it against wrong actions of people absorbed by desire? The final shocking moments say for themselves. Though you don't have to agree with the vision, OSSESSIONE is really a wonderfully realistic film, one of Visconti's best 8/10@@@1 +This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.@@@0 +A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.

@@@1 +Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).

Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).@@@0 +To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.@@@1 +The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene.@@@0 +TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!@@@1 +

Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).@@@0 +A masterful treatment of James Caine's "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as Luchino Visconti's first film shot primarily around Ferrara in a soulless war-torn Italy. The original negative was thought destroyed but Visconti saved a print and fortunately we can see this early neo-realist work today. A ruggedly handsome Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai (who had recently revealed her breasts in La Cena delle beffe" (1941), star as the sensually-charged and ill-fated lovers who plot to kill her husband. Unusual ending in which, although crime does not pay, one pays in a way not directly linked to the crime. Excellent direction, script, acting, and cinematography. Reportedly not as good as the French "Le Dernier tournant' (1939) but probably better than the US version (1946) featuring Lana Turner and John Garfield in the lead roles. Highly recommended.@@@1 +Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.@@@0 +'Iphigenia' is the great achievement of Michael Cacoyannis. This masterful play is masterfully adapted for the screen and brought to life by a wonderful cast. Cacoyannis achieved the impossible. He managed to film a Greek tragedy to screen without losing its effectiveness and importance. A stellar greek cast helps him in this. Newcomer Tatiana Papamoschou is extremely impressive as Iphigenia. Equally impressive is Irene Papas ,who even though she sometimes seems over the top, it is very realistic. A wonderful Greek film, beautifully adapted and directed by Michael Cacoyannis, with an excellent music score by Mikis Theodorakis which is ideal in every scene.

P.S. Rumours say that the film lost the best foreign language film Oscar by only 1 vote!!!@@@1 +Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.

Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.

If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.@@@0 +Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).

Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes.

It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.@@@1 +First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.@@@0 +fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again.@@@1 +I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!@@@0 +Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a "Master positive" 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come.@@@1 +This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.@@@0 +Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten.@@@1 +and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).

maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.

the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!

rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .

I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.

points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!@@@0 +Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.

The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.

I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!@@@1 +This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!

The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.

In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.

I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".

I rated this movie 1/10.@@@0 +Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.

The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.

What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.

Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.

The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.

"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.@@@1 +Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.@@@0 +(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.@@@1 +Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:

In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.

The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.

There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.@@@0 +Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.@@@1 +This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point.@@@0 +This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.@@@1 +Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...@@@0 +Watching "Ossessione" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from "Ossessione" and De Sica's "I Bambini Ci Guardano", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" as a guide to the development of his own themes.

It strikes us even today how ahead of its time "Ossessione" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help.

"Ossessione" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist "Telefoni Bianchi" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in "A Streetcar Named Desire") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.

All the copies of "Ossessione" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's "Roma CIttà Aperta" and De Sica's "Sciuscià". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw "Ossessione" as the Italian counterpart to the "poetic realism" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's "Quai des Brumes" and "Le Jour se Lève", and Julien Duvivier's "Pépé le Moko".

While "Ossessione" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, "everyday- life" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In "Ossessione" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially "Senso" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and "Rocco e Suoi Fratelli"...Even in his most "Neo-Realist" film, "La Terra Trema", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.

"Ossessione" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. "Ossessione" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.@@@1 +Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.

* out of 4-(Bad)@@@0 +This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh.@@@1 +A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.@@@0 +Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.

Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.

Terrific@@@1 +someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.

please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.@@@0 +When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.

But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.

I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased.@@@1 +You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.

The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.

Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.

Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.

Just bad.@@@0 +This anime seriously rocked my socks. When the anime first opened itself, I felt it was too slow; the story wasn't quite moving forward, and Shirou was quite an unimpressive male lead. Once he learns more about tracing, and you learn more about Saber and the Holy Grail War itself, the story pans out and you can see multiple facets of it moving together. It was fantastic.

Additionally, I felt that the way the characters developed was very true to form with the way real people develop, in the real world. There wasn't any stupid completely obvious things going on; the development of Ilya and Rin was interesting to watch, but I think the way Shirou and Saber grew in their certain personalities was just interesting to watch all on its on. A few of the "surprise" people that show up (Gilgamesh?) seemed to also be unique from the rest of the cast in one way or another, meaning we didn't have "Generic Bad-ass A" being replaced by "Generic Bad-ass B" as soon as A died.

Anddd, I loved the music. The opening music rocked, and the finishing theme from the final episode just...Seriously pushed forward the theme of the last episode even more. Good job, Type-MOON!@@@1 +There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.

It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.

It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.

If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.

It's still drivel, though.@@@0 +Fate/Stay Night is an animated series inspired by a h-game. Somehow the producers turned it around making this a successful series without any of the h-stuff. It couldn't have been any other way because the development of the characters is great just the way it's pictured in this series and any alteration of that could only ruin perfection.(You'll understand once you see all the episodes).

Despite a relatively slow start (the producer took his time on presenting the characters) things gain momentum quickly and soon after mid-series the action gets so intense that glues you to your seat.

The topic of the series concentrates on the War of Holy Grail that has been taking place in the Fukuky City for the last 50 years. The pilot actually starts with the conclusion of the previous war and develops from there on. Shiro is the only survivor of the fire that started during the last battle and enveloped a large portion of the city.He unwillingly witnesses a fight between two Servants that triggers his Reiju (Holy mark) to summon one of the most powerful Servants of the battlefield, Saber. His first contact with Saber left him stunned "Such immeasurable beauty ...I was at a lost for words".

You mustn't compare this series with any other to fully understand it's plot. FSN offers much more than some cool sword fights, good animation, spectacular lights, great soundtrack, it offers excellent character and relationship development. It presents the changes that take place within the characters personalities as the events precipitate. The action reveals believable dynamic emotional and behavioral patterns of the individuals (not similar to the linear type other series use) that are constantly shaping their personalities to reveal, from under the mask of perfection, flawed characters.

The Saber character is tied to a medieval legend that has been altered to fit this series and should be accepted as such. You shouldn't watch FSN thinking that it doesn't present the viewer with the historic fact, just remember that this is adventure/fantasy series and not a documentary and enjoy this as long as you can. The ending is sudden and unexpected and if there were twice as many episodes I would have watched them in the same breath.@@@1 +This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.@@@0 +I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.

I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.

I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)

I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.

Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it)@@@1 +I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.@@@0 +When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.@@@1 +In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgs—robots with human features—that have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.

Only one force can stop Jōb's death march—the Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.

In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.

Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).@@@0 +I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.

I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!

If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.@@@1 +This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)@@@0 +this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!

@@@1 +Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.@@@0 +This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.@@@1 +Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.@@@0 +The combination of the superb black and white photography and the 'Eugene Onegin with a twist' plot made this a real knock out for me. The atmosphere created by the mostly very dark shots contrasted with occasional very bright overexposed white was gripping. There was a superb moment where where transparencies - apparently conventional holiday snaps but where the faces of the actors revealed character and situation subtly but instantly - were shown accompanied by Lensky's heart-wrenching aria from the Tschaikowsky opera Eugene Onegin.

For me the mark of a good film is that it should take advantage of the opportunities presented by that medium, which means that often the story is less important than imagery and atmosphere - Last Year in Marienbad is a good example of such a film. Krisana is in the same mould.@@@1 +Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.@@@0 +Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!!@@@1 +The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.

The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.@@@0 +This is a lovely tale of guilt-driven obsession.

Matiss, on a lonely night stroll in Riga (?) passes by a woman on the wrong side of a bridge railing. He passes by without a word. Only the splash in the water followed by a cry for help causes him to act. And then only too little and too late.

The film chronicles his efforts at finding out more about the woman. On a troll of local bars, he finds her pocketbook. He pieces more and more of her life together. His "look" changes as his obsession grows. He has to make things right. In a marvelously filmed dialog with the "bastard ex-boyfriend" he forces Alexej to face up to the guilt that both feel.

Haunting long takes, a gritty soundtrack to accentuate the guilt, barking dogs. Footsteps. Lovely film noir with a lovely twist. A good Indie ending.@@@1 +"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."@@@0 +I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.

"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.

Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.

The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.

"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out.@@@1 +With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.@@@0 +A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies. A very realistic portrait of a broken family and the effect it has on the kid caught in between. As a child of divorced parents I was totally relating to events in the film. Also - a really cool zombie twist which I thought was VERY ORIGINAL. I'm tired of the same old stuff in movies.@@@1 +As big as a Texas prairie and equally as boring. Even Liz Taylor, James Dean, Chill Wills, and Dennis Hopper can't float this overbloated boat. Taylor actually LOOKS bad--wrong wardrobe, wrong hair, and wrong makeup--a unique accomplishment in her remarkable career. Hopper gives the only believable performance, and Dean in the climactic scene displays remarkable talent as something we usually don't remember him for--a comic actor. Rock Hudson is his usual prototype of Barbie Doll Ken and makes one wonder what a, say, Redford could have done with the male lead. There is no discernible plot that provides any tension until the final twenty minutes, just a pastiche of milestones that have little relationship to each other. Except for Hopper, there is no character development, only a collection of cardboard cutouts that pop up periodically for no discernible reason like random targets in a shooting gallery. To its credit, the film does tackle racism and sexism at a time when they were taboo subjects, and it does have SIZE, making it an excellent choice for ridding yourself of unwelcome house guests. Those with the DVD version can spare themselves some of the tedium by starting with the second disk. You won't be missing anything of interest.@@@0 +Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.@@@1 +This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography@@@0 +I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful!@@@1 +Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).

This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.

Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!

This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).@@@0 +Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.@@@1 +I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.@@@0 +Answer: despite that fact that this film was written and directed by a woman, your ex is creepier, nastier, and more irrational than any zombie that ever lurched the earth.

The acting in this independent film actually is quite good, despite the less-than-wonderful script. It takes a pretty good actor to deliver an overwritten, clichéd line and make it sound vaguely believable. Young Anthony de Marco, as Jake, puts in a particularly good performance.

Fortunately, the plot of this film is a lot better than the dialog. Try it, especially if you're not a monster fan. This is NOT a horror flick. Even though all the adult females are pretty monstrous, and although all the adult males act as if their brains were eaten in some earlier zombie film, "Jake's Closet" is suitable for mature adults.

The whole, this time, is much better than the sum of its parts.@@@1 +An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.

Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.

The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.

Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.

I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.

The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.@@@0 +I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet.

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!@@@1 +I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what … but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.

For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.

Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.

There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.

Grade: ** out of *****@@@0 +I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you.

It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.

And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.

If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.@@@1 +Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.

Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.

As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.

Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.

Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.@@@0 +Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.

Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.@@@1 +There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!@@@0 +This is a delightful movie that is so over-the-top that my wife, daughter, and I found it irresistible. The plot is just crazy but "rings true" to the world of soap operas in all its outrageous improbabilities and impossibilities.

I particularly enjoyed Kevin Kline's and Sally Field's performances. I don't anyone better than Kline at playing THICKheaded. Field's character's truly desperate need for attention and affirmation -- and her almost bipolar swings in mood -- played nicely against the background of Field's famous (infamous?) "You like me!" Oscar exclamation. People who can take themselves with such a large grain of salt are all too rare in this world.

I think this is the only movie where I didn't find myself impatient with Whoopi Goldberg characterization; I thought she was "spot on" in every note she struck. Robert Downey Jr., Teri Hatcher, Cathy Moriarty, and Elizabeth Shue were also first-rate as well. Just a great movie if you're in the mood to go along for the ride and LAUGH!@@@1 +I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.@@@0 +Every child experiences trauma growing up and every child's active imagination has gotten the best of them, but for Jake (Anthony De Marco – of the forthcoming Clint Eastwood film CHANGELING - who resembles Henry Thomas circa 1982) the combination may prove deadly.

A lonely six year old whose imagination kicks into high gear when he is crestfallen to learn his quarrelling parents Peter (Sean Bridgers, late of "DEADWOOD") and Jules (Brooke Bloom, "CBS: Miami") suddenly decide to divorce, leaving him to his own devices and unleashing a new tenant – a zombie in his closet.

Jake actually gets this seed planted while playing with neighborhood friend Dillon (Matthew Josten) who provides him with a print out off the internet of FAQ re: zombies. Jake is so convinced that one is out to get him – and his family – he begins to hatch a plan of action to protect them before it's too late.

Indie newcomer Shelli Ryan – who wrote and directed – blends domestic drama with underlings of horror but the former (smartly) outweighs the latter, with a decent story buoyed by fine acting(De Marco is the rare breed of child actor where he is a CHILD and not 'acting' - all his nuances are very evident of the awkward, shy, introverted child that many can relate too (I certainly can). Bridgers makes his cheating husband empathetic in the realization he really loves his son while Bloom has the more difficult job of building sympathy as the somewhat lackadaisical mother who is quick to emotions over rationality – it doesn't help when Dillon's mother Ruth (Monette Magrath, who resembles Laura Dern) is constantly feeding her implied information driving a wedge between Jake and his dad. Magrath also has a tough task to make her manipulative character relatively likable but she proves to in a revealing scene that I won't go into detail but shows why she is the way she is (and more importantly how she has also affected her own child).

The fillmmaker's subjective camera is also well employed (many angles shown form Jake's POV at waist-level or somewhat skewed; i.e. the upside down shot of Peter carrying his son in the same position while having some fun in the backyard), and the editing is relatively flawless.

Ryan based the screenplay on personal experiences growing up and also witnessing first hand account of a friend going through the same situation and how the affects of adult relationships can be harmful if inflicting their fears, anger and stress onto their children. Here the film is very successful in getting its theme across.

However the horror underpinnings are a little disjointed to say the least but the homage to George A. Romero's zombie films are shown lovingly by Ryan (Jake's mom is asleep in front of the TV as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD unspools, causing his own belief of the undead to be in their home). The metaphor of a monster acting as surrogate to domestic abuse may be a bit heavy-handed but again, the child's fear of a thing under his bed is universal.@@@1 +This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.@@@0 +This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA.@@@1 +In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski:

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children."

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.@@@0 +I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.

This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.

I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.@@@1 +I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.

I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.

What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.@@@0 +I remember seeing this on TV in the late 70s - and it stayed with me! It's charming, loud, colourful - a great kids film. I put it on for some friends at a party recently - and naturally they thought I was mad and expected something sick to happen to the puppets a la "Meet the feebles" But no - its wholesome clean fun.

jack wild is in fine form, as is mama cass, and the somehow attractive witchy poo.

If you like the banana splits and you are in your 30's this will re-create that surreal childhood Saturday morning vibe!

Even if I've realised now that Puf himself is a bit crap - as all he does is get captured and run away! Quality TV movie - if, like me, you are into death metal - you'll love it!@@@1 +1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.@@@0 +Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.

Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.

I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm@@@1 +I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox@@@0 +This is why I still have nightmares.

This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.

A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).

The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.

Not suitable for children.@@@1 +I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?@@@0 +I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.@@@1 +Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.@@@0 +i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year......@@@1 +Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.

It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.

For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.

The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).

Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.

These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.

The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.

It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"

Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.

It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.

Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.

These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.

Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.@@@0 +I absolutely LOVED this movie when I was a kid. I cried every time I watched it. It wasn't weird to me. I totally identified with the characters. I would love to see it again (and hope I wont be disappointed!). Pufnstuf rocks!!!! I was really drawn in to the fantasy world. And to me the movie was loooong. I wonder if I ever saw the series and have confused them? The acting I thought was strong. I loved Jack Wilde. He was so dreamy to an 10 year old (when I first saw the movie, not in 1970. I can still remember the characters vividly. The flute was totally believable and I can still 'feel' the evil woods. Witchy poo was scary - I wouldn't want to cross her path.@@@1 +Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.

One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.

Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.

Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.

Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.

By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.

I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.

Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.

I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.

Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.@@@0 +This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.@@@1 +Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.@@@0 +The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.

It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.

It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.

You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.

If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.@@@1 +As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.

I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money.

Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community.

This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible.

It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.

The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.

I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.@@@0 diff --git a/imdb_analysis.py b/imdb_analysis.py deleted file mode 100644 index 11974c8..0000000 --- a/imdb_analysis.py +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -from keras.preprocessing.text import Tokenizer -from keras.preprocessing import sequence -from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split -import nltk -import collections -from nltk.corpus import stopwords -import numpy as np - -from model.model1 import lstm_attention_model, lstm_stateful - -pos_list=[] -with open('data/train_pos_all.txt','r',encoding='utf8')as f: - line=f.readlines() - pos_list.extend(line) -neg_list=[] -with open('data/train_neg_all.txt','r',encoding='utf8')as f: - line=f.readlines() - neg_list.extend(line) -# 创建标签 -label=[1 for i in range(12500)] -label.extend([0 for i in range(12499)]) -# 评论内容整合 -content=pos_list.extend(neg_list) -content=pos_list - - -# 去掉停用词和标点符号 -seq=[] -seqtence=[] -# nltk.download("stopwords") -# nltk.download("punkt") -stop_words=set(stopwords.words('english')) -for con in content: - words=nltk.word_tokenize(con) - line=[] - for word in words: - if word.isalpha() and word not in stop_words: - line.append(word) - seq.append(line) - seqtence.extend(line) - -maxlen = 0 #句子最大长度 -word_freqs = collections.Counter() #词频 -num_recs = 0 # 样本数 -for line in seqtence: - sentence = line - words = nltk.word_tokenize(sentence.lower()) - if len(words) > maxlen: - maxlen = len(words) - for word in words: - word_freqs[word] += 1 - num_recs += 1 -print('max_len ', maxlen) -print('nb_words ', len(word_freqs)) - - -# 获取词索引 -tokenizer = Tokenizer() -tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) -one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') -word_index = tokenizer.word_index -sequences=tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) -# 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 -final_sequences=sequence.pad_sequences(sequences,maxlen=800) -print(len(one_hot_results)) -print(len(word_index)) -print(len(sequences)) -print(len(final_sequences)) - - -# 转换为numpy类型 -label=np.array(label) -# 随机打乱数据 -indices=np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences)-1) -X=final_sequences[indices] -y=label[indices] -# 划分测试集和训练集 -Xtrain,Xtest,ytrain,ytest=train_test_split(X,y,test_size=0.2) - - -# 网络构建 -# model = lstm_attention_model(input_dim=800, sourcevocabsize=len(word_index), output_dim=1) -model = lstm_stateful() -model.fit(Xtrain,ytrain,batch_size=32,epochs=10,validation_data=(Xtest,ytest)) - -# https://www.jianshu.com/p/6b16b592b08d - - - - diff --git a/logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log b/logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2efa49d --- /dev/null +++ b/logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss +0,0.5754166666666667,0.6774674526850383,0.7066666666666667,0.5748529557387034 +1,0.8575,0.3753171145915985,0.7500000007947286,0.5474931194384893 +2,0.975,0.07997938671149313,0.755,0.781051945288976 +3,0.995,0.013062863748588522,0.7733333325386047,1.4771280666192372 +4,0.9991666666666666,0.002578435566332094,0.7783333333333333,1.5368619855244954 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log index 9f38882..2a5c93f 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_0.log @@ -1,101 +1,101 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.2142857164144516,0.7691696882247925,0.1666666716337204,0.6968860030174255 -1,0.5,0.6797966957092285,0.6666666865348816,0.6854147911071777 -2,0.5714285969734192,0.6564531922340393,0.6666666865348816,0.6657294631004333 -3,0.5,0.6584855914115906,0.6666666865348816,0.6467658877372742 -4,0.5714285969734192,0.663375735282898,0.6666666865348816,0.6340286135673523 -5,0.6428571343421936,0.6304769515991211,0.6666666865348816,0.622786283493042 -6,0.7857142686843872,0.6006123423576355,0.6666666865348816,0.6025535464286804 -7,0.7857142686843872,0.5502466559410095,0.8333333134651184,0.5809667706489563 -8,0.7857142686843872,0.6035996675491333,0.8333333134651184,0.5639434456825256 -9,0.8571428656578064,0.5463551878929138,0.8333333134651184,0.5465020537376404 -10,0.9285714030265808,0.5490833520889282,0.8333333134651184,0.5322120785713196 -11,0.8571428656578064,0.5239607691764832,0.8333333134651184,0.5174854397773743 -12,0.9285714030265808,0.4752539098262787,1.0,0.4925011694431305 -13,0.7857142686843872,0.5459045767784119,0.8333333134651184,0.4801720678806305 -14,0.9285714030265808,0.5176941156387329,1.0,0.4622505009174347 -15,0.8571428656578064,0.4919445812702179,1.0,0.43939587473869324 -16,0.9285714030265808,0.44554615020751953,1.0,0.420293927192688 -17,0.9285714030265808,0.3324262797832489,1.0,0.3973822295665741 -18,0.9285714030265808,0.4001629054546356,1.0,0.37898388504981995 -19,0.9285714030265808,0.35949036478996277,1.0,0.36181020736694336 -20,1.0,0.30874040722846985,1.0,0.3422410488128662 -21,0.7857142686843872,0.33006614446640015,1.0,0.31518450379371643 -22,1.0,0.29378166794776917,1.0,0.2865974009037018 -23,1.0,0.34466758370399475,1.0,0.2689237892627716 -24,1.0,0.2725095748901367,1.0,0.2401953488588333 -25,0.9285714030265808,0.3630825877189636,1.0,0.2305315136909485 -26,1.0,0.26639965176582336,1.0,0.20689429342746735 -27,0.9285714030265808,0.29201197624206543,1.0,0.1914723664522171 -28,0.9285714030265808,0.24518443644046783,1.0,0.1781657189130783 -29,0.8571428656578064,0.31285175681114197,1.0,0.16460610926151276 -30,0.9285714030265808,0.24582770466804504,1.0,0.1536044031381607 -31,1.0,0.18470223248004913,1.0,0.136222705245018 -32,0.9285714030265808,0.19852757453918457,1.0,0.12190407514572144 -33,1.0,0.1554633229970932,1.0,0.10891031473875046 -34,1.0,0.2202216535806656,1.0,0.09989767521619797 -35,1.0,0.13831260800361633,1.0,0.09166359156370163 -36,1.0,0.09167628735303879,1.0,0.08299549669027328 -37,1.0,0.21322284638881683,1.0,0.07344026118516922 -38,1.0,0.14946095645427704,1.0,0.06670180708169937 -39,1.0,0.09147430956363678,1.0,0.05854429304599762 -40,1.0,0.18412552773952484,1.0,0.05302606523036957 -41,1.0,0.09666352719068527,1.0,0.04770746827125549 -42,1.0,0.08450506627559662,1.0,0.042681824415922165 -43,1.0,0.08433519303798676,1.0,0.04134305939078331 -44,1.0,0.09391379356384277,1.0,0.03870026394724846 -45,1.0,0.0264675784856081,1.0,0.03586174547672272 -46,0.9285714030265808,0.15149198472499847,1.0,0.0326368510723114 -47,1.0,0.09731601178646088,1.0,0.02832973003387451 -48,1.0,0.1069759652018547,1.0,0.025143621489405632 -49,0.9285714030265808,0.19944767653942108,1.0,0.023518921807408333 -50,1.0,0.05166583135724068,1.0,0.021032018586993217 -51,0.9285714030265808,0.06062784790992737,1.0,0.020082516595721245 -52,1.0,0.09896988421678543,1.0,0.018223611637949944 -53,1.0,0.0497157908976078,1.0,0.016383590176701546 -54,1.0,0.04256517067551613,1.0,0.01497249398380518 -55,1.0,0.08501887321472168,1.0,0.013066637329757214 -56,1.0,0.09599677473306656,1.0,0.01155577227473259 -57,1.0,0.04380107298493385,1.0,0.010255347937345505 -58,1.0,0.030079873278737068,1.0,0.009291460737586021 -59,1.0,0.038285501301288605,1.0,0.007959555834531784 -60,1.0,0.042844269424676895,1.0,0.007039967458695173 -61,1.0,0.04712093994021416,1.0,0.006350230425596237 -62,1.0,0.03839700669050217,1.0,0.0056389435194432735 -63,1.0,0.09127455949783325,1.0,0.005245724692940712 -64,1.0,0.07462602108716965,1.0,0.004670026246458292 -65,1.0,0.07987456023693085,1.0,0.004217054229229689 -66,1.0,0.00984864216297865,1.0,0.00391608290374279 -67,1.0,0.04039726033806801,1.0,0.0032852578442543745 -68,1.0,0.012395094148814678,1.0,0.003060301998630166 -69,0.9285714030265808,0.05836820602416992,1.0,0.0030624258797615767 -70,1.0,0.02835427224636078,1.0,0.0026188790798187256 -71,1.0,0.005036982707679272,1.0,0.0024089941289275885 -72,1.0,0.05610128119587898,1.0,0.002091076457872987 -73,1.0,0.009501256048679352,1.0,0.0018907004268839955 -74,1.0,0.021054062992334366,1.0,0.0017037359066307545 -75,1.0,0.002968083368614316,1.0,0.0016149664297699928 -76,1.0,0.05051838606595993,1.0,0.0013479744084179401 -77,1.0,0.04591674730181694,1.0,0.0011579041602090001 -78,1.0,0.049976203590631485,1.0,0.0011313777649775147 -79,1.0,0.01984633132815361,1.0,0.001045572105795145 -80,1.0,0.001616889494471252,1.0,0.0010003907373175025 -81,1.0,0.02939969301223755,1.0,0.0007999413064680994 -82,1.0,0.00671177264302969,1.0,0.0007314736139960587 -83,1.0,0.02327582612633705,1.0,0.0006681616068817675 -84,1.0,0.05214524269104004,1.0,0.0005942556890659034 -85,1.0,0.04609372466802597,1.0,0.0005143682355992496 -86,1.0,0.04113013669848442,1.0,0.00041868467815220356 -87,1.0,0.009963960386812687,1.0,0.0003722121473401785 -88,1.0,0.004160521551966667,1.0,0.0003485812048893422 -89,1.0,0.0004058827762492001,1.0,0.0003419771383050829 -90,0.9285714030265808,0.07239186763763428,1.0,0.00031826001941226423 -91,1.0,0.011510806158185005,1.0,0.0002743580553214997 -92,1.0,0.0015767650911584496,1.0,0.00026458725915290415 -93,1.0,0.011715246364474297,1.0,0.00022785710461903363 -94,1.0,0.0006863604066893458,1.0,0.0002235666470369324 -95,1.0,0.00027620780747383833,1.0,0.00022077855828683823 -96,1.0,0.01380483340471983,1.0,0.00019453065760899335 -97,1.0,0.0018850478809326887,1.0,0.00017494319763500243 -98,1.0,0.027910854667425156,1.0,0.00015180674381554127 -99,1.0,0.0027512479573488235,1.0,0.0001376699801767245 +0,0.7142857313156128,0.6710842847824097,0.6666666865348816,0.6343727707862854 +1,0.5714285969734192,0.6551533341407776,0.6666666865348816,0.6052961945533752 +2,0.5,0.6490915417671204,0.6666666865348816,0.5761263966560364 +3,0.6428571343421936,0.5899633765220642,0.6666666865348816,0.5356666445732117 +4,0.5714285969734192,0.6046684980392456,0.6666666865348816,0.5029434561729431 +5,0.6428571343421936,0.5117584466934204,0.6666666865348816,0.4619544744491577 +6,0.6428571343421936,0.523897111415863,0.6666666865348816,0.43365564942359924 +7,0.5714285969734192,0.4914584457874298,0.6666666865348816,0.3999300003051758 +8,0.7142857313156128,0.41294798254966736,0.8333333134651184,0.3704049289226532 +9,0.6428571343421936,0.4209841787815094,1.0,0.3455026149749756 +10,0.7857142686843872,0.45110124349594116,1.0,0.3230113685131073 +11,0.8571428656578064,0.40285593271255493,1.0,0.30371126532554626 +12,0.9285714030265808,0.331796795129776,1.0,0.28863489627838135 +13,0.9285714030265808,0.35380321741104126,1.0,0.2764676511287689 +14,1.0,0.3585415482521057,1.0,0.2600181996822357 +15,0.9285714030265808,0.3811926245689392,1.0,0.2510577440261841 +16,1.0,0.33057060837745667,1.0,0.2395518571138382 +17,1.0,0.32854458689689636,1.0,0.22418443858623505 +18,0.9285714030265808,0.31362101435661316,1.0,0.21463529765605927 +19,1.0,0.29245588183403015,1.0,0.2039644569158554 +20,1.0,0.28530174493789673,1.0,0.19354969263076782 +21,1.0,0.23802267014980316,1.0,0.18318451941013336 +22,1.0,0.2594981789588928,1.0,0.17552435398101807 +23,1.0,0.3140426576137543,1.0,0.16877859830856323 +24,1.0,0.24289657175540924,1.0,0.1616942137479782 +25,1.0,0.2620692849159241,1.0,0.15490899980068207 +26,1.0,0.2582911550998688,1.0,0.14638036489486694 +27,1.0,0.22730760276317596,1.0,0.13788838684558868 +28,1.0,0.24551603198051453,1.0,0.13239286839962006 +29,1.0,0.21693654358386993,1.0,0.125028595328331 +30,1.0,0.23306314647197723,1.0,0.1214618906378746 +31,1.0,0.19631269574165344,1.0,0.11253535747528076 +32,1.0,0.1911715418100357,1.0,0.10509701818227768 +33,1.0,0.1674628108739853,1.0,0.09894639253616333 +34,1.0,0.172321155667305,1.0,0.09232749789953232 +35,1.0,0.13752596080303192,1.0,0.08266890794038773 +36,1.0,0.16965709626674652,1.0,0.07907965034246445 +37,1.0,0.12967362999916077,1.0,0.07419973611831665 +38,1.0,0.17729389667510986,1.0,0.06801996380090714 +39,1.0,0.11971668899059296,1.0,0.0626063197851181 +40,1.0,0.14340031147003174,1.0,0.056409161537885666 +41,1.0,0.14039906859397888,1.0,0.0518902949988842 +42,1.0,0.17041918635368347,1.0,0.04821503162384033 +43,1.0,0.07783784717321396,1.0,0.04346025362610817 +44,1.0,0.16065840423107147,1.0,0.039249420166015625 +45,1.0,0.11155179888010025,1.0,0.03536472097039223 +46,1.0,0.06210953742265701,1.0,0.032088059931993484 +47,1.0,0.04417285695672035,1.0,0.02845836989581585 +48,1.0,0.0668332427740097,1.0,0.025650784373283386 +49,1.0,0.13203641772270203,1.0,0.02324814163148403 +50,1.0,0.10496394336223602,1.0,0.022946743294596672 +51,1.0,0.04536336660385132,1.0,0.02039904147386551 +52,1.0,0.1293080896139145,1.0,0.018527524545788765 +53,1.0,0.03714798018336296,1.0,0.01635129749774933 +54,1.0,0.09413223713636398,1.0,0.014109780080616474 +55,1.0,0.06852973997592926,1.0,0.01266377791762352 +56,1.0,0.0599735789000988,1.0,0.01213032752275467 +57,1.0,0.08998469263315201,1.0,0.010670444928109646 +58,1.0,0.06375063955783844,1.0,0.009318233467638493 +59,1.0,0.03768375515937805,1.0,0.008786228485405445 +60,1.0,0.04141341522336006,1.0,0.008109678514301777 +61,1.0,0.02065885066986084,1.0,0.007219348568469286 +62,1.0,0.022053908556699753,1.0,0.00643528625369072 +63,1.0,0.025825558230280876,1.0,0.006185614038258791 +64,1.0,0.060969773679971695,1.0,0.005587471183389425 +65,1.0,0.04673665389418602,1.0,0.004728949628770351 +66,1.0,0.051472000777721405,1.0,0.004155277740210295 +67,1.0,0.07428507506847382,1.0,0.0035779185127466917 +68,1.0,0.01651165820658207,1.0,0.003194466233253479 +69,1.0,0.03305209055542946,1.0,0.0029055795166641474 +70,1.0,0.018780438229441643,1.0,0.002527359640225768 +71,1.0,0.07676553726196289,1.0,0.0021864213049411774 +72,1.0,0.03217460215091705,1.0,0.0017978019313886762 +73,1.0,0.05907714366912842,1.0,0.0020578999537974596 +74,1.0,0.07623084634542465,1.0,0.001542187761515379 +75,1.0,0.02374318242073059,1.0,0.0013925038510933518 +76,1.0,0.008240800350904465,1.0,0.0012966073118150234 +77,1.0,0.035904113203287125,1.0,0.0010514630703255534 +78,1.0,0.00493650371208787,1.0,0.0010050195269286633 +79,1.0,0.004810558166354895,1.0,0.0009136369335465133 +80,1.0,0.06015840172767639,1.0,0.0007669892511330545 +81,1.0,0.020433640107512474,1.0,0.0006320830434560776 +82,1.0,0.001398133230395615,1.0,0.0006231663282960653 +83,1.0,0.04545234516263008,1.0,0.0005192594835534692 +84,1.0,0.004840799607336521,1.0,0.0004762889875564724 +85,1.0,0.007866845466196537,1.0,0.00042548985220491886 +86,1.0,0.00493104150518775,1.0,0.000475973793072626 +87,1.0,0.07700731605291367,1.0,0.0003777955425903201 +88,1.0,0.0011425948468968272,1.0,0.0003655632899608463 +89,1.0,0.031020035967230797,1.0,0.0003228750138077885 +90,1.0,0.017111608758568764,1.0,0.0002757013135123998 +91,1.0,0.010848796926438808,1.0,0.0002345269313082099 +92,1.0,0.002116789575666189,1.0,0.0002203766634920612 +93,1.0,0.004896793980151415,1.0,0.00019114691531285644 +94,1.0,0.02605714090168476,1.0,0.0002060486003756523 +95,1.0,0.0011715516448020935,1.0,0.0001981063833227381 +96,1.0,0.031086325645446777,1.0,0.00013513301382772624 +97,1.0,0.03761766478419304,1.0,0.00012390479969326407 +98,1.0,0.02119210548698902,1.0,0.00013920365017838776 +99,1.0,0.013871131464838982,1.0,0.00011828169226646423 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log index 6e3697b..c9a0c8f 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_1.log @@ -1,7 +1,19 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.4714285731315613,0.6987895965576172,0.5,0.6954065561294556 -1,0.5285714268684387,0.6884825825691223,0.5,0.697887122631073 -2,0.5428571701049805,0.7039175033569336,0.5,0.6961176991462708 -3,0.5142857432365417,0.695519745349884,0.5,0.6960023045539856 -4,0.5428571701049805,0.688764214515686,0.5,0.6971126794815063 -5,0.5285714268684387,0.6866439580917358,0.5,0.6961126327514648 +0,0.44999998807907104,0.6950151324272156,0.5,0.6929777264595032 +1,0.4571428596973419,0.6923828721046448,0.5,0.6922051906585693 +2,0.4285714328289032,0.6967502236366272,0.5,0.6919963359832764 +3,0.5285714268684387,0.6855106949806213,0.5,0.6917493343353271 +4,0.5285714268684387,0.681915819644928,0.5,0.6915927529335022 +5,0.5142857432365417,0.6863794922828674,0.5,0.691387414932251 +6,0.5571428537368774,0.6895539164543152,0.5333333611488342,0.6912470459938049 +7,0.5285714268684387,0.6799060702323914,0.5333333611488342,0.6912274956703186 +8,0.5857142806053162,0.6895562410354614,0.5333333611488342,0.6911816000938416 +9,0.5428571701049805,0.6795345544815063,0.5333333611488342,0.6911258697509766 +10,0.5571428537368774,0.6811453104019165,0.5333333611488342,0.6912120580673218 +11,0.5571428537368774,0.6723760366439819,0.5333333611488342,0.6913735866546631 +12,0.6285714507102966,0.6926207542419434,0.5333333611488342,0.6911076903343201 +13,0.5714285969734192,0.6794657707214355,0.5333333611488342,0.69121253490448 +14,0.6571428775787354,0.6838542222976685,0.5333333611488342,0.6911837458610535 +15,0.6428571343421936,0.6668285131454468,0.5333333611488342,0.6914111375808716 +16,0.6000000238418579,0.6554742455482483,0.5333333611488342,0.6919859647750854 +17,0.6285714507102966,0.6529318690299988,0.5333333611488342,0.6929017305374146 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log index 954cce7..0c37e4e 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_2.log @@ -1,45 +1,8 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5285714268684387,0.693706214427948,0.5,0.6894098520278931 -1,0.5428571701049805,0.6844221353530884,0.5,0.685284435749054 -2,0.6000000238418579,0.6794106364250183,0.5,0.6848456263542175 -3,0.4714285731315613,0.6944605112075806,0.5,0.684241533279419 -4,0.4000000059604645,0.6952572464942932,0.5,0.683633029460907 -5,0.5142857432365417,0.6823317408561707,0.5,0.683365523815155 -6,0.4714285731315613,0.7098394632339478,0.5,0.683491587638855 -7,0.48571428656578064,0.6957525014877319,0.5,0.6835471987724304 -8,0.5142857432365417,0.6872329115867615,0.5,0.6833088994026184 -9,0.5285714268684387,0.6777858734130859,0.5,0.6837227940559387 -10,0.5285714268684387,0.6959571242332458,0.5,0.6845171451568604 -11,0.4714285731315613,0.6866312623023987,0.5,0.6827827095985413 -12,0.6000000238418579,0.6878129243850708,0.5,0.6826778650283813 -13,0.5857142806053162,0.680587112903595,0.5,0.6829558610916138 -14,0.5428571701049805,0.6874510645866394,0.5,0.6825443506240845 -15,0.5857142806053162,0.6669931411743164,0.5,0.6816622614860535 -16,0.5285714268684387,0.6665118336677551,0.6333333253860474,0.6810859441757202 -17,0.5428571701049805,0.6940799355506897,0.5,0.6807821989059448 -18,0.5285714268684387,0.6858396530151367,0.5,0.6802403330802917 -19,0.5571428537368774,0.6965922117233276,0.5,0.6796500086784363 -20,0.5571428537368774,0.6730545163154602,0.6333333253860474,0.6793673038482666 -21,0.5714285969734192,0.6641274094581604,0.6333333253860474,0.6786084771156311 -22,0.5857142806053162,0.6802955865859985,0.6333333253860474,0.6777995228767395 -23,0.6000000238418579,0.6691990494728088,0.6333333253860474,0.6772863864898682 -24,0.5285714268684387,0.6813409328460693,0.6333333253860474,0.6770401000976562 -25,0.5571428537368774,0.681715190410614,0.6333333253860474,0.6767625212669373 -26,0.5857142806053162,0.6717007160186768,0.6333333253860474,0.6764605045318604 -27,0.5571428537368774,0.6728200316429138,0.6333333253860474,0.67681884765625 -28,0.5571428537368774,0.6877877116203308,0.6333333253860474,0.6766759157180786 -29,0.6285714507102966,0.6604304909706116,0.6333333253860474,0.6760169267654419 -30,0.5714285969734192,0.6727585196495056,0.6333333253860474,0.6760045886039734 -31,0.5428571701049805,0.6957576274871826,0.6333333253860474,0.6759120225906372 -32,0.5285714268684387,0.7089534997940063,0.6333333253860474,0.6756139397621155 -33,0.5571428537368774,0.6838079690933228,0.6333333253860474,0.6753236055374146 -34,0.6571428775787354,0.6674954891204834,0.6333333253860474,0.6753148436546326 -35,0.5,0.6851524114608765,0.6333333253860474,0.6756839156150818 -36,0.699999988079071,0.6548210978507996,0.6333333253860474,0.6756232976913452 -37,0.5571428537368774,0.6891102194786072,0.6333333253860474,0.675424337387085 -38,0.5428571701049805,0.6909148693084717,0.6333333253860474,0.6745865345001221 -39,0.5571428537368774,0.6824678182601929,0.6333333253860474,0.6747882962226868 -40,0.6000000238418579,0.6751278042793274,0.6333333253860474,0.6750143766403198 -41,0.5714285969734192,0.7018095254898071,0.6333333253860474,0.67727130651474 -42,0.6428571343421936,0.6651911735534668,0.6333333253860474,0.6767734885215759 -43,0.5714285969734192,0.671413779258728,0.6333333253860474,0.6772162914276123 +0,0.47857141494750977,0.704607367515564,0.6000000238418579,0.689746618270874 +1,0.5571428537368774,0.693353533744812,0.6000000238418579,0.6885930299758911 +2,0.5571428537368774,0.6952847242355347,0.6000000238418579,0.6886268854141235 +3,0.5428571701049805,0.694768488407135,0.5333333611488342,0.6900959014892578 +4,0.5142857432365417,0.6875989437103271,0.5333333611488342,0.6900721192359924 +5,0.5285714268684387,0.6879631876945496,0.5,0.6914950013160706 +6,0.5142857432365417,0.6944775581359863,0.5,0.6910539865493774 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log index 9ea902c..285735c 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_3.log @@ -1,23 +1,7 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.44999998807907104,0.6999397277832031,0.5333333611488342,0.6887118220329285 -1,0.41428571939468384,0.722046434879303,0.5,0.6896786093711853 -2,0.5714285969734192,0.6790615916252136,0.5,0.6878230571746826 -3,0.5857142806053162,0.6768568754196167,0.5,0.6851552128791809 -4,0.5571428537368774,0.6751108169555664,0.5,0.682022750377655 -5,0.41428571939468384,0.6964574456214905,0.5,0.6812027096748352 -6,0.5,0.6925972700119019,0.5,0.6808649301528931 -7,0.48571428656578064,0.6886793375015259,0.5,0.6787158250808716 -8,0.44285714626312256,0.6959816813468933,0.5,0.678663432598114 -9,0.6142857074737549,0.6681332588195801,0.46666666865348816,0.6785176992416382 -10,0.5285714268684387,0.6908625364303589,0.5333333611488342,0.6778850555419922 -11,0.5285714268684387,0.6787512302398682,0.5,0.6721013188362122 -12,0.5428571701049805,0.6850574016571045,0.5,0.6711490750312805 -13,0.6142857074737549,0.6637448668479919,0.6333333253860474,0.6698211431503296 -14,0.5285714268684387,0.7063723206520081,0.6333333253860474,0.6712397336959839 -15,0.5571428537368774,0.6846518516540527,0.6333333253860474,0.6714966893196106 -16,0.5857142806053162,0.6715434789657593,0.6333333253860474,0.6686673760414124 -17,0.5428571701049805,0.6824674010276794,0.6000000238418579,0.671775221824646 -18,0.5,0.671794593334198,0.6000000238418579,0.6746223568916321 -19,0.5857142806053162,0.6633580327033997,0.6000000238418579,0.6756001710891724 -20,0.5857142806053162,0.6837954521179199,0.6000000238418579,0.674997866153717 -21,0.5285714268684387,0.6842147707939148,0.6000000238418579,0.6752941012382507 +0,0.48571428656578064,0.6999160647392273,0.6000000238418579,0.6921431422233582 +1,0.4285714328289032,0.6955012083053589,0.4000000059604645,0.6943817734718323 +2,0.4571428596973419,0.6857520937919617,0.36666667461395264,0.6944844722747803 +3,0.5,0.6893550157546997,0.4000000059604645,0.6986672878265381 +4,0.44285714626312256,0.6996745467185974,0.36666667461395264,0.6984280943870544 +5,0.7142857313156128,0.6670210957527161,0.4000000059604645,0.7036634087562561 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log index a8e83bc..fe8745a 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_4.log @@ -1,12 +1,46 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.4214285612106323,0.7075384259223938,0.6666666865348816,0.6910558342933655 -1,0.4571428596973419,0.6928271651268005,0.5666666626930237,0.6876137256622314 -2,0.5,0.6941860914230347,0.6666666865348816,0.6864851117134094 -3,0.5142857432365417,0.6894562244415283,0.6666666865348816,0.6850831508636475 -4,0.5428571701049805,0.6807078123092651,0.6666666865348816,0.6838822960853577 -5,0.5857142806053162,0.6992769241333008,0.6333333253860474,0.6826773285865784 -6,0.5714285969734192,0.6976850032806396,0.6333333253860474,0.6831978559494019 -7,0.5,0.6954684853553772,0.6333333253860474,0.682688295841217 -8,0.5857142806053162,0.6837905049324036,0.5666666626930237,0.6835858821868896 -9,0.6000000238418579,0.6841498613357544,0.5666666626930237,0.6832618713378906 -10,0.6142857074737549,0.6767346262931824,0.6000000238418579,0.6853111982345581 +0,0.5214285850524902,0.6869992017745972,0.4000000059604645,0.6985795497894287 +1,0.5571428537368774,0.6932705044746399,0.4000000059604645,0.6945598125457764 +2,0.4714285731315613,0.6843046545982361,0.5,0.6956777572631836 +3,0.44285714626312256,0.6931601762771606,0.5,0.6937821507453918 +4,0.48571428656578064,0.6923699975013733,0.5,0.6907607913017273 +5,0.5714285969734192,0.6915174126625061,0.4333333373069763,0.6900050640106201 +6,0.5428571701049805,0.6902351379394531,0.4333333373069763,0.6883002519607544 +7,0.5571428537368774,0.6778676509857178,0.4333333373069763,0.6871808171272278 +8,0.4714285731315613,0.6937920451164246,0.4333333373069763,0.6859621405601501 +9,0.48571428656578064,0.689024031162262,0.5,0.6834742426872253 +10,0.5857142806053162,0.6754711270332336,0.5333333611488342,0.6813308596611023 +11,0.5,0.6815882921218872,0.6000000238418579,0.6792382597923279 +12,0.6285714507102966,0.664555013179779,0.46666666865348816,0.6771771311759949 +13,0.5714285969734192,0.6753548979759216,0.5666666626930237,0.6769410371780396 +14,0.48571428656578064,0.691234827041626,0.5333333611488342,0.6759060025215149 +15,0.5428571701049805,0.6813796758651733,0.5333333611488342,0.6751226782798767 +16,0.6142857074737549,0.6510188579559326,0.5,0.6738752722740173 +17,0.5714285969734192,0.6792920231819153,0.5,0.6759873032569885 +18,0.6285714507102966,0.678221583366394,0.5333333611488342,0.673560380935669 +19,0.5571428537368774,0.6614434719085693,0.5333333611488342,0.6716081500053406 +20,0.6000000238418579,0.6631666421890259,0.5333333611488342,0.6691604256629944 +21,0.5571428537368774,0.6587741374969482,0.5333333611488342,0.6678316593170166 +22,0.5857142806053162,0.6717894673347473,0.5333333611488342,0.6647724509239197 +23,0.6000000238418579,0.6586452722549438,0.5333333611488342,0.6643516421318054 +24,0.5857142806053162,0.6408708691596985,0.5333333611488342,0.6636806726455688 +25,0.5714285969734192,0.6618801951408386,0.5666666626930237,0.6629092693328857 +26,0.6142857074737549,0.6509669423103333,0.5666666626930237,0.6597076654434204 +27,0.5714285969734192,0.641385555267334,0.5666666626930237,0.6604028344154358 +28,0.5857142806053162,0.6497649550437927,0.5333333611488342,0.6590486764907837 +29,0.5571428537368774,0.6663821339607239,0.5666666626930237,0.6552125215530396 +30,0.5571428537368774,0.6553845405578613,0.5666666626930237,0.6530949473381042 +31,0.6142857074737549,0.6278430223464966,0.6000000238418579,0.646210253238678 +32,0.6571428775787354,0.63079833984375,0.5333333611488342,0.6472292542457581 +33,0.5857142806053162,0.6453697085380554,0.5333333611488342,0.6445817351341248 +34,0.6285714507102966,0.6296939849853516,0.6000000238418579,0.6400923132896423 +35,0.5571428537368774,0.6278274655342102,0.5666666626930237,0.6438707113265991 +36,0.6714285612106323,0.633899450302124,0.6000000238418579,0.63633793592453 +37,0.6000000238418579,0.6647681593894958,0.5,0.6410073637962341 +38,0.5428571701049805,0.6313328146934509,0.5333333611488342,0.636834979057312 +39,0.5714285969734192,0.6354597210884094,0.5333333611488342,0.6355118155479431 +40,0.6571428775787354,0.6144300699234009,0.5,0.6392567753791809 +41,0.5428571701049805,0.6839320063591003,0.5,0.6408096551895142 +42,0.5714285969734192,0.630584716796875,0.5333333611488342,0.6406903862953186 +43,0.5285714268684387,0.6159285306930542,0.5666666626930237,0.6372254490852356 +44,0.5428571701049805,0.6494137048721313,0.5333333611488342,0.6398255825042725 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log index 33e6494..673c5e1 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_5.log @@ -1,78 +1,16 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.44285714626312256,0.6991942524909973,0.5666666626930237,0.6928198337554932 -1,0.44285714626312256,0.6986868977546692,0.6000000238418579,0.6887578368186951 -2,0.5285714268684387,0.6806528568267822,0.699999988079071,0.6891658902168274 -3,0.5428571701049805,0.6759377717971802,0.6666666865348816,0.6875340938568115 -4,0.5,0.6910053491592407,0.5333333611488342,0.6897391676902771 -5,0.6000000238418579,0.6980157494544983,0.5333333611488342,0.6867055296897888 -6,0.5714285969734192,0.6952627897262573,0.6333333253860474,0.6843330264091492 -7,0.5,0.708501398563385,0.5333333611488342,0.6842492818832397 -8,0.4714285731315613,0.6953228712081909,0.6333333253860474,0.6833994388580322 -9,0.4285714328289032,0.7137538194656372,0.5333333611488342,0.6815825700759888 -10,0.5857142806053162,0.6787053942680359,0.5333333611488342,0.6812545657157898 -11,0.5285714268684387,0.6980565786361694,0.5333333611488342,0.6809589266777039 -12,0.48571428656578064,0.6841543316841125,0.5333333611488342,0.6801007390022278 -13,0.5142857432365417,0.6854611039161682,0.5333333611488342,0.6811410784721375 -14,0.5428571701049805,0.692854106426239,0.5333333611488342,0.6793975830078125 -15,0.5,0.693091630935669,0.5333333611488342,0.6787646412849426 -16,0.5428571701049805,0.6869755983352661,0.5333333611488342,0.6788867712020874 -17,0.6285714507102966,0.6695905923843384,0.5333333611488342,0.6777395009994507 -18,0.6142857074737549,0.6833823919296265,0.6666666865348816,0.6774977445602417 -19,0.4285714328289032,0.69041907787323,0.6666666865348816,0.6774713397026062 -20,0.6285714507102966,0.6813910603523254,0.6666666865348816,0.6773689389228821 -21,0.5571428537368774,0.6970824003219604,0.6666666865348816,0.67594313621521 -22,0.48571428656578064,0.698740541934967,0.6666666865348816,0.6748327612876892 -23,0.5,0.6832336783409119,0.6666666865348816,0.6750011444091797 -24,0.5714285969734192,0.6819369196891785,0.7333333492279053,0.6744973659515381 -25,0.5,0.6885620951652527,0.6666666865348816,0.6737659573554993 -26,0.5857142806053162,0.6809400320053101,0.6666666865348816,0.6722508668899536 -27,0.5857142806053162,0.6868493556976318,0.6666666865348816,0.6705140471458435 -28,0.5571428537368774,0.6963421702384949,0.6666666865348816,0.6694627404212952 -29,0.5571428537368774,0.6928644776344299,0.699999988079071,0.667985737323761 -30,0.5857142806053162,0.6728905439376831,0.699999988079071,0.6640847325325012 -31,0.6285714507102966,0.6673994064331055,0.6666666865348816,0.6620914936065674 -32,0.5714285969734192,0.6815744042396545,0.6000000238418579,0.6631466746330261 -33,0.6142857074737549,0.6700264811515808,0.6666666865348816,0.6589863896369934 -34,0.6285714507102966,0.6710253357887268,0.7666666507720947,0.6570687890052795 -35,0.6285714507102966,0.6694613099098206,0.7666666507720947,0.6534979939460754 -36,0.6000000238418579,0.673751175403595,0.7666666507720947,0.6509091854095459 -37,0.699999988079071,0.6384153366088867,0.7666666507720947,0.6455373167991638 -38,0.6142857074737549,0.6602683067321777,0.7666666507720947,0.6457210183143616 -39,0.6000000238418579,0.6570167541503906,0.7666666507720947,0.6419142484664917 -40,0.5285714268684387,0.6873019337654114,0.7666666507720947,0.6438121199607849 -41,0.6571428775787354,0.6575998067855835,0.7666666507720947,0.6416386365890503 -42,0.6714285612106323,0.6398344039916992,0.7666666507720947,0.636827826499939 -43,0.6142857074737549,0.6678704619407654,0.6333333253860474,0.6363298892974854 -44,0.6000000238418579,0.6574569940567017,0.6333333253860474,0.6332235336303711 -45,0.5571428537368774,0.6936197876930237,0.6333333253860474,0.6386598944664001 -46,0.48571428656578064,0.674123227596283,0.7333333492279053,0.6332918405532837 -47,0.5714285969734192,0.6568307876586914,0.7333333492279053,0.6296091675758362 -48,0.6571428775787354,0.6752610802650452,0.6333333253860474,0.6313585638999939 -49,0.6142857074737549,0.6654943227767944,0.6666666865348816,0.6271207928657532 -50,0.5714285969734192,0.64876788854599,0.7666666507720947,0.6222039461135864 -51,0.5714285969734192,0.6554151177406311,0.7666666507720947,0.6194021701812744 -52,0.6285714507102966,0.6811070442199707,0.699999988079071,0.6222575902938843 -53,0.5,0.6733109354972839,0.7666666507720947,0.6206138730049133 -54,0.6857143044471741,0.6355476379394531,0.7666666507720947,0.6172237992286682 -55,0.6428571343421936,0.6429391503334045,0.7666666507720947,0.610683023929596 -56,0.699999988079071,0.6431941390037537,0.7666666507720947,0.6040784120559692 -57,0.5857142806053162,0.6390208005905151,0.7666666507720947,0.599091112613678 -58,0.6714285612106323,0.6215845346450806,0.7666666507720947,0.5963844656944275 -59,0.5714285969734192,0.6767314076423645,0.7666666507720947,0.594350278377533 -60,0.5857142806053162,0.654553234577179,0.7666666507720947,0.597917914390564 -61,0.6571428775787354,0.6368202567100525,0.7666666507720947,0.594440758228302 -62,0.5857142806053162,0.6373482942581177,0.7666666507720947,0.5937718749046326 -63,0.6714285612106323,0.6218699216842651,0.7666666507720947,0.5908302068710327 -64,0.6285714507102966,0.6418803334236145,0.7666666507720947,0.5894334316253662 -65,0.6428571343421936,0.651384711265564,0.7666666507720947,0.5873546600341797 -66,0.6857143044471741,0.6136307716369629,0.7666666507720947,0.5836991667747498 -67,0.6285714507102966,0.6547907590866089,0.7666666507720947,0.5805030465126038 -68,0.6428571343421936,0.6504008173942566,0.7666666507720947,0.5775812864303589 -69,0.6285714507102966,0.6349735856056213,0.8333333134651184,0.577498733997345 -70,0.6142857074737549,0.6277393698692322,0.7666666507720947,0.5676293969154358 -71,0.6285714507102966,0.6180124282836914,0.7666666507720947,0.5669645071029663 -72,0.6571428775787354,0.6404402852058411,0.7666666507720947,0.5728614330291748 -73,0.6000000238418579,0.6509358286857605,0.7666666507720947,0.5773971676826477 -74,0.6857143044471741,0.6074771285057068,0.7666666507720947,0.5693350434303284 -75,0.6142857074737549,0.6181129217147827,0.8333333134651184,0.5715264678001404 -76,0.6142857074737549,0.6537542343139648,0.8333333134651184,0.5776958465576172 +0,0.5,0.6963796615600586,0.36666667461395264,0.696698009967804 +1,0.5285714268684387,0.6906920671463013,0.46666666865348816,0.6951881647109985 +2,0.5285714268684387,0.6895170211791992,0.4333333373069763,0.6899710893630981 +3,0.4714285731315613,0.6939582228660583,0.46666666865348816,0.6888529658317566 +4,0.5571428537368774,0.6915514469146729,0.46666666865348816,0.6884368062019348 +5,0.5285714268684387,0.6742401719093323,0.4333333373069763,0.6880980134010315 +6,0.44285714626312256,0.6939827799797058,0.5,0.6864611506462097 +7,0.5285714268684387,0.6825448870658875,0.5,0.6857402920722961 +8,0.5571428537368774,0.6812185049057007,0.5,0.6859579682350159 +9,0.5714285969734192,0.6847397089004517,0.46666666865348816,0.6840261220932007 +10,0.6000000238418579,0.6694813966751099,0.5666666626930237,0.6842460036277771 +11,0.6000000238418579,0.6704286336898804,0.5666666626930237,0.6846182346343994 +12,0.5142857432365417,0.688321590423584,0.46666666865348816,0.6852824091911316 +13,0.5285714268684387,0.6739954352378845,0.5666666626930237,0.6853271126747131 +14,0.5714285969734192,0.6754143834114075,0.5666666626930237,0.6867862939834595 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log index 06cfeef..9e0f0e9 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_6.log @@ -1,26 +1,25 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.6285714507102966,0.6860395073890686,0.5,0.697557270526886 -1,0.5428571701049805,0.7180352807044983,0.5,0.6849462985992432 -2,0.4714285731315613,0.7034924030303955,0.5,0.6821131110191345 -3,0.5714285969734192,0.6674895882606506,0.5,0.6782051920890808 -4,0.6142857074737549,0.6582968831062317,0.5666666626930237,0.6711674928665161 -5,0.6571428775787354,0.6587326526641846,0.5333333611488342,0.6712075471878052 -6,0.6428571343421936,0.6721373200416565,0.5333333611488342,0.6627221703529358 -7,0.6428571343421936,0.6632710099220276,0.5333333611488342,0.6609752774238586 -8,0.5714285969734192,0.6732084155082703,0.5333333611488342,0.6610121130943298 -9,0.699999988079071,0.6355205178260803,0.5333333611488342,0.658193826675415 -10,0.6142857074737549,0.6549214124679565,0.6000000238418579,0.6514555811882019 -11,0.6571428775787354,0.6578994393348694,0.6333333253860474,0.640929639339447 -12,0.6142857074737549,0.6552501320838928,0.6666666865348816,0.6395145654678345 -13,0.699999988079071,0.6412282586097717,0.6000000238418579,0.6432967782020569 -14,0.6571428775787354,0.6306743025779724,0.6666666865348816,0.638803243637085 -15,0.6285714507102966,0.6337465643882751,0.6000000238418579,0.6423308253288269 -16,0.6142857074737549,0.6415921449661255,0.6000000238418579,0.6402501463890076 -17,0.699999988079071,0.6025219559669495,0.6666666865348816,0.6313323974609375 -18,0.7428571581840515,0.6010540723800659,0.6666666865348816,0.6270257234573364 -19,0.6857143044471741,0.6025679707527161,0.6666666865348816,0.6196262836456299 -20,0.6285714507102966,0.6268807053565979,0.6333333253860474,0.6236225366592407 -21,0.6142857074737549,0.643852949142456,0.6666666865348816,0.6199780106544495 -22,0.6571428775787354,0.6074948310852051,0.6666666865348816,0.6213743090629578 -23,0.6285714507102966,0.6160183548927307,0.6000000238418579,0.6242619752883911 -24,0.7285714149475098,0.5787917375564575,0.6000000238418579,0.6211546659469604 +0,0.4642857015132904,0.7053887248039246,0.5333333611488342,0.6852312684059143 +1,0.44285714626312256,0.7022963166236877,0.6666666865348816,0.6777006983757019 +2,0.6285714507102966,0.6783204674720764,0.699999988079071,0.6732208132743835 +3,0.6142857074737549,0.6694422960281372,0.699999988079071,0.6687740683555603 +4,0.5142857432365417,0.6838834285736084,0.6666666865348816,0.6660801768302917 +5,0.6285714507102966,0.6605774164199829,0.6666666865348816,0.6624938249588013 +6,0.6142857074737549,0.6687144041061401,0.6333333253860474,0.6637895107269287 +7,0.699999988079071,0.6439974308013916,0.6666666865348816,0.6579428315162659 +8,0.6571428775787354,0.6544485688209534,0.6000000238418579,0.6548870205879211 +9,0.6857143044471741,0.6447789072990417,0.5666666626930237,0.6538721323013306 +10,0.6285714507102966,0.644042432308197,0.5666666626930237,0.6539866924285889 +11,0.7142857313156128,0.6094735860824585,0.5666666626930237,0.6511759161949158 +12,0.7285714149475098,0.5971454977989197,0.6000000238418579,0.6503448486328125 +13,0.7285714149475098,0.5787129402160645,0.5666666626930237,0.6499561667442322 +14,0.6857143044471741,0.6332547068595886,0.5666666626930237,0.6501901149749756 +15,0.7714285850524902,0.5708481073379517,0.5666666626930237,0.6528451442718506 +16,0.699999988079071,0.5771418809890747,0.5666666626930237,0.6483662128448486 +17,0.6714285612106323,0.6047540903091431,0.5666666626930237,0.6407949328422546 +18,0.7142857313156128,0.6048738956451416,0.5666666626930237,0.6338793039321899 +19,0.699999988079071,0.5973546504974365,0.5666666626930237,0.6378730535507202 +20,0.7714285850524902,0.5686488747596741,0.5666666626930237,0.6432487368583679 +21,0.7285714149475098,0.5672176480293274,0.5666666626930237,0.6418936252593994 +22,0.699999988079071,0.6197371482849121,0.5666666626930237,0.635693371295929 +23,0.7571428418159485,0.5597516894340515,0.5666666626930237,0.6379050016403198 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log index 88a4bd5..137c389 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_7.log @@ -1,69 +1,15 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5,0.6897499561309814,0.5333333611488342,0.6917239427566528 -1,0.5571428537368774,0.6810449361801147,0.6333333253860474,0.687508761882782 -2,0.5714285969734192,0.6828582882881165,0.699999988079071,0.6743428707122803 -3,0.6285714507102966,0.6671308875083923,0.699999988079071,0.665975034236908 -4,0.6000000238418579,0.6503329873085022,0.5666666626930237,0.6602555513381958 -5,0.6000000238418579,0.6853387951850891,0.5333333611488342,0.6618395447731018 -6,0.5714285969734192,0.6724538207054138,0.5333333611488342,0.6597490310668945 -7,0.6000000238418579,0.6780796647071838,0.6333333253860474,0.6547072529792786 -8,0.6000000238418579,0.6692798733711243,0.6000000238418579,0.6600579619407654 -9,0.5857142806053162,0.6842799782752991,0.6333333253860474,0.6491286754608154 -10,0.6857143044471741,0.6589351892471313,0.6666666865348816,0.6464974880218506 -11,0.6714285612106323,0.6073400378227234,0.6333333253860474,0.6402981877326965 -12,0.6857143044471741,0.6296303272247314,0.6333333253860474,0.6364182829856873 -13,0.6000000238418579,0.6421504020690918,0.6666666865348816,0.6308519840240479 -14,0.6428571343421936,0.6463477611541748,0.7333333492279053,0.6307885050773621 -15,0.6714285612106323,0.6315144896507263,0.6000000238418579,0.6383130550384521 -16,0.6714285612106323,0.6678759455680847,0.6666666865348816,0.623306155204773 -17,0.6142857074737549,0.6516129374504089,0.7333333492279053,0.6305685639381409 -18,0.5714285969734192,0.6742792129516602,0.6666666865348816,0.6265249848365784 -19,0.6285714507102966,0.633062481880188,0.6666666865348816,0.6250401735305786 -20,0.7142857313156128,0.6269166469573975,0.699999988079071,0.6159048676490784 -21,0.6857143044471741,0.6211478114128113,0.6666666865348816,0.6096144914627075 -22,0.6571428775787354,0.6407753825187683,0.6666666865348816,0.6108776926994324 -23,0.6285714507102966,0.6574938297271729,0.699999988079071,0.611552894115448 -24,0.7285714149475098,0.6154484748840332,0.699999988079071,0.6058552265167236 -25,0.6571428775787354,0.6453319787979126,0.6666666865348816,0.6030356884002686 -26,0.7142857313156128,0.6162654757499695,0.6666666865348816,0.6012576818466187 -27,0.7714285850524902,0.579783022403717,0.6666666865348816,0.5943759083747864 -28,0.6857143044471741,0.613929271697998,0.6666666865348816,0.5952675938606262 -29,0.7428571581840515,0.6029356122016907,0.6666666865348816,0.5893346071243286 -30,0.6857143044471741,0.6115120053291321,0.6666666865348816,0.5828908085823059 -31,0.6571428775787354,0.5785018801689148,0.6666666865348816,0.5818368196487427 -32,0.7714285850524902,0.5708844065666199,0.699999988079071,0.5766626000404358 -33,0.7285714149475098,0.5830618739128113,0.6666666865348816,0.5784139037132263 -34,0.6857143044471741,0.5964425206184387,0.6666666865348816,0.5790040493011475 -35,0.699999988079071,0.5653460025787354,0.6333333253860474,0.5775831341743469 -36,0.800000011920929,0.5418214201927185,0.6666666865348816,0.568440854549408 -37,0.7142857313156128,0.5420607328414917,0.6333333253860474,0.5590124130249023 -38,0.6857143044471741,0.5777881145477295,0.7666666507720947,0.5544193983078003 -39,0.800000011920929,0.5399784445762634,0.6333333253860474,0.5481395721435547 -40,0.7714285850524902,0.5380803942680359,0.6333333253860474,0.5474888682365417 -41,0.800000011920929,0.5395530462265015,0.699999988079071,0.5547803044319153 -42,0.7571428418159485,0.56524658203125,0.7333333492279053,0.5605494976043701 -43,0.6857143044471741,0.6217158436775208,0.6666666865348816,0.5673932433128357 -44,0.7571428418159485,0.5163819193840027,0.6333333253860474,0.5462445616722107 -45,0.7285714149475098,0.5719181895256042,0.6666666865348816,0.5556058287620544 -46,0.8142856955528259,0.5318387150764465,0.699999988079071,0.542469322681427 -47,0.800000011920929,0.5217306613922119,0.699999988079071,0.5329701900482178 -48,0.7571428418159485,0.550763726234436,0.6666666865348816,0.5402341485023499 -49,0.7857142686843872,0.5524207353591919,0.7666666507720947,0.5383545756340027 -50,0.7857142686843872,0.4935723543167114,0.699999988079071,0.5305332541465759 -51,0.7428571581840515,0.5095095038414001,0.699999988079071,0.5238121151924133 -52,0.7714285850524902,0.5137304067611694,0.6666666865348816,0.5253551006317139 -53,0.7714285850524902,0.4722200036048889,0.6666666865348816,0.5321410298347473 -54,0.800000011920929,0.507485032081604,0.699999988079071,0.5323264598846436 -55,0.800000011920929,0.500211238861084,0.7333333492279053,0.5201900601387024 -56,0.7428571581840515,0.5600330829620361,0.699999988079071,0.5280928015708923 -57,0.8428571224212646,0.4973629415035248,0.6666666865348816,0.5316758751869202 -58,0.800000011920929,0.5023689866065979,0.699999988079071,0.5163004994392395 -59,0.7857142686843872,0.5073022842407227,0.7333333492279053,0.5217677354812622 -60,0.800000011920929,0.4964520037174225,0.7333333492279053,0.5241829752922058 -61,0.7714285850524902,0.5243247151374817,0.7333333492279053,0.5178665518760681 -62,0.7428571581840515,0.4775066375732422,0.7333333492279053,0.5158405900001526 -63,0.8142856955528259,0.4943179488182068,0.7333333492279053,0.5205886960029602 -64,0.8285714387893677,0.47023943066596985,0.7333333492279053,0.5202285051345825 -65,0.8285714387893677,0.47069570422172546,0.699999988079071,0.5238437652587891 -66,0.800000011920929,0.4560033977031708,0.6666666865348816,0.5369584560394287 -67,0.8428571224212646,0.4310634732246399,0.699999988079071,0.535792350769043 +0,0.4642857015132904,0.6933185458183289,0.4333333373069763,0.6953562498092651 +1,0.5285714268684387,0.6842285990715027,0.46666666865348816,0.6925925612449646 +2,0.5142857432365417,0.6843329668045044,0.46666666865348816,0.6919748187065125 +3,0.5714285969734192,0.6808225512504578,0.4333333373069763,0.6940809488296509 +4,0.48571428656578064,0.6926671862602234,0.5,0.6930391192436218 +5,0.5714285969734192,0.6820423603057861,0.5,0.6948288083076477 +6,0.6714285612106323,0.6731254458427429,0.6000000238418579,0.6927538514137268 +7,0.5571428537368774,0.6778215765953064,0.6000000238418579,0.6916599273681641 +8,0.5,0.6817423701286316,0.5,0.6901005506515503 +9,0.6714285612106323,0.6686703562736511,0.5333333611488342,0.6913470029830933 +10,0.6285714507102966,0.6647846698760986,0.5,0.6933371424674988 +11,0.6285714507102966,0.6576014161109924,0.5333333611488342,0.6938982009887695 +12,0.6428571343421936,0.6583906412124634,0.5333333611488342,0.6918091177940369 +13,0.5142857432365417,0.6752244830131531,0.6333333253860474,0.6915038824081421 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log index 96f966c..b86f3e8 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_8.log @@ -1,66 +1,53 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.5285714268684387,0.70943284034729,0.5,0.6891118884086609 -1,0.5,0.682983934879303,0.5333333611488342,0.6774283051490784 -2,0.5,0.6822140216827393,0.5,0.674212634563446 -3,0.5428571701049805,0.6812313795089722,0.6333333253860474,0.6674104332923889 -4,0.5428571701049805,0.6907945275306702,0.6666666865348816,0.6610017418861389 -5,0.7571428418159485,0.6459213495254517,0.6666666865348816,0.6510583162307739 -6,0.5857142806053162,0.6607534289360046,0.7333333492279053,0.6476513743400574 -7,0.5571428537368774,0.7020584940910339,0.6000000238418579,0.6482408046722412 -8,0.6285714507102966,0.651698648929596,0.7333333492279053,0.6440180540084839 -9,0.6285714507102966,0.6525290608406067,0.699999988079071,0.6404276490211487 -10,0.5571428537368774,0.6626172661781311,0.6000000238418579,0.6384837031364441 -11,0.7714285850524902,0.6121799945831299,0.699999988079071,0.6300020813941956 -12,0.5285714268684387,0.68280029296875,0.7666666507720947,0.6264722943305969 -13,0.6428571343421936,0.6344267129898071,0.7333333492279053,0.6271907091140747 -14,0.6571428775787354,0.6337957978248596,0.699999988079071,0.6222438812255859 -15,0.5857142806053162,0.6666333079338074,0.7666666507720947,0.6135798096656799 -16,0.6428571343421936,0.6416365504264832,0.7666666507720947,0.6136104464530945 -17,0.6857143044471741,0.6291075348854065,0.7333333492279053,0.6110914945602417 -18,0.5857142806053162,0.6419916749000549,0.7666666507720947,0.6118472814559937 -19,0.6857143044471741,0.6471466422080994,0.7666666507720947,0.6116288900375366 -20,0.699999988079071,0.6218615770339966,0.7666666507720947,0.6048887968063354 -21,0.7142857313156128,0.6058748960494995,0.800000011920929,0.5980150699615479 -22,0.6857143044471741,0.6536536812782288,0.7666666507720947,0.5988863706588745 -23,0.7142857313156128,0.5974873900413513,0.7666666507720947,0.5931006669998169 -24,0.699999988079071,0.6345766186714172,0.7666666507720947,0.5956420302391052 -25,0.7142857313156128,0.6020234823226929,0.7666666507720947,0.5929238796234131 -26,0.7571428418159485,0.6054713726043701,0.7666666507720947,0.5864226222038269 -27,0.7285714149475098,0.5797297954559326,0.7666666507720947,0.5770849585533142 -28,0.6857143044471741,0.5862997174263,0.7666666507720947,0.5755631923675537 -29,0.699999988079071,0.5815725326538086,0.7666666507720947,0.5680984258651733 -30,0.7571428418159485,0.5875855684280396,0.7666666507720947,0.5653308033943176 -31,0.7428571581840515,0.59307461977005,0.7666666507720947,0.5596583485603333 -32,0.7285714149475098,0.5824219584465027,0.7666666507720947,0.5542746186256409 -33,0.7428571581840515,0.5487408638000488,0.7666666507720947,0.5475561618804932 -34,0.7714285850524902,0.5453357100486755,0.7666666507720947,0.5390299558639526 -35,0.699999988079071,0.5826383233070374,0.7666666507720947,0.5384895205497742 -36,0.7428571581840515,0.5785836577415466,0.7666666507720947,0.5384939908981323 -37,0.800000011920929,0.5221903324127197,0.800000011920929,0.5248792767524719 -38,0.7571428418159485,0.5415723323822021,0.7333333492279053,0.52363121509552 -39,0.7142857313156128,0.5308774709701538,0.7666666507720947,0.5188950896263123 -40,0.8285714387893677,0.5039507150650024,0.699999988079071,0.5497564673423767 -41,0.7285714149475098,0.522099494934082,0.7666666507720947,0.5127894282341003 -42,0.800000011920929,0.49496960639953613,0.7666666507720947,0.5317777991294861 -43,0.7142857313156128,0.54979407787323,0.7666666507720947,0.518308699131012 -44,0.800000011920929,0.5173864364624023,0.7666666507720947,0.5136661529541016 -45,0.7714285850524902,0.5049048066139221,0.7666666507720947,0.5074952840805054 -46,0.8428571224212646,0.46522027254104614,0.7333333492279053,0.5151350498199463 -47,0.7857142686843872,0.4586173892021179,0.7666666507720947,0.49594709277153015 -48,0.8142856955528259,0.4513322412967682,0.7666666507720947,0.5036203265190125 -49,0.7857142686843872,0.4805935025215149,0.7666666507720947,0.49205276370048523 -50,0.8714285492897034,0.461495578289032,0.7666666507720947,0.4947642982006073 -51,0.8142856955528259,0.45038914680480957,0.7666666507720947,0.48641273379325867 -52,0.8285714387893677,0.4692426323890686,0.7666666507720947,0.4842015504837036 -53,0.8285714387893677,0.4418858587741852,0.7666666507720947,0.47760167717933655 -54,0.8142856955528259,0.4626115560531616,0.7666666507720947,0.5104318261146545 -55,0.7714285850524902,0.4583064019680023,0.800000011920929,0.47649335861206055 -56,0.7857142686843872,0.48417940735816956,0.7666666507720947,0.4835038483142853 -57,0.8142856955528259,0.41650596261024475,0.7666666507720947,0.4740460515022278 -58,0.8142856955528259,0.47463259100914,0.7666666507720947,0.4784967303276062 -59,0.8142856955528259,0.41721436381340027,0.7666666507720947,0.4703983962535858 -60,0.8571428656578064,0.4002102315425873,0.7666666507720947,0.4720929265022278 -61,0.8571428656578064,0.40112966299057007,0.7666666507720947,0.4783501923084259 -62,0.8142856955528259,0.40630030632019043,0.7666666507720947,0.4812992811203003 -63,0.8571428656578064,0.39736542105674744,0.7666666507720947,0.4867094159126282 -64,0.8571428656578064,0.39688029885292053,0.7666666507720947,0.48755544424057007 +0,0.4642857015132904,0.7249937653541565,0.46666666865348816,0.6972377896308899 +1,0.5428571701049805,0.6914231777191162,0.5333333611488342,0.6941039562225342 +2,0.5714285969734192,0.6874089241027832,0.5666666626930237,0.6921433806419373 +3,0.5285714268684387,0.6912670135498047,0.5666666626930237,0.691716194152832 +4,0.5857142806053162,0.6710051894187927,0.6000000238418579,0.6876858472824097 +5,0.6000000238418579,0.6795440316200256,0.6333333253860474,0.6879894733428955 +6,0.5285714268684387,0.6943019032478333,0.6000000238418579,0.6884202361106873 +7,0.5857142806053162,0.6845133900642395,0.6333333253860474,0.6888769865036011 +8,0.48571428656578064,0.6952685117721558,0.6000000238418579,0.6860700845718384 +9,0.6571428775787354,0.6798176765441895,0.6333333253860474,0.6830393075942993 +10,0.6428571343421936,0.6667642593383789,0.6333333253860474,0.6824626922607422 +11,0.6714285612106323,0.6632034182548523,0.6666666865348816,0.6810556054115295 +12,0.6142857074737549,0.6696386933326721,0.6000000238418579,0.6797106862068176 +13,0.5714285969734192,0.664254367351532,0.6000000238418579,0.6758992671966553 +14,0.5857142806053162,0.6711980700492859,0.5666666626930237,0.6723617315292358 +15,0.6714285612106323,0.6470885276794434,0.5666666626930237,0.6705159544944763 +16,0.6714285612106323,0.6651239991188049,0.5666666626930237,0.6671081781387329 +17,0.6428571343421936,0.6444301009178162,0.6000000238418579,0.6636645793914795 +18,0.6000000238418579,0.6518725156784058,0.5666666626930237,0.660586416721344 +19,0.6142857074737549,0.6519143581390381,0.5666666626930237,0.6585039496421814 +20,0.6571428775787354,0.638042151927948,0.5666666626930237,0.6599921584129333 +21,0.6285714507102966,0.6300774812698364,0.5666666626930237,0.655781626701355 +22,0.699999988079071,0.6462773680686951,0.6333333253860474,0.6553071141242981 +23,0.7285714149475098,0.6206052899360657,0.5666666626930237,0.652285635471344 +24,0.6857143044471741,0.643267810344696,0.5666666626930237,0.6499160528182983 +25,0.6428571343421936,0.6251259446144104,0.6000000238418579,0.651132345199585 +26,0.7571428418159485,0.6004754304885864,0.6000000238418579,0.6516897678375244 +27,0.6428571343421936,0.6302928328514099,0.6333333253860474,0.6502692103385925 +28,0.6714285612106323,0.6188373565673828,0.6333333253860474,0.6449026465415955 +29,0.6714285612106323,0.6008000373840332,0.6000000238418579,0.6409586071968079 +30,0.699999988079071,0.6018857955932617,0.6000000238418579,0.6370773911476135 +31,0.7428571581840515,0.5871065258979797,0.6000000238418579,0.6334242224693298 +32,0.6857143044471741,0.6050106883049011,0.6000000238418579,0.6311722993850708 +33,0.6571428775787354,0.6236063838005066,0.6000000238418579,0.6327504515647888 +34,0.699999988079071,0.6018235087394714,0.6000000238418579,0.6267048120498657 +35,0.6714285612106323,0.5959576964378357,0.6000000238418579,0.6293882727622986 +36,0.6142857074737549,0.6150283217430115,0.6000000238418579,0.625453770160675 +37,0.7285714149475098,0.571170449256897,0.6000000238418579,0.6222940683364868 +38,0.7714285850524902,0.5621297359466553,0.6000000238418579,0.6218355894088745 +39,0.7714285850524902,0.5635326504707336,0.6333333253860474,0.6247042417526245 +40,0.6714285612106323,0.555201530456543,0.6000000238418579,0.6175022125244141 +41,0.7428571581840515,0.5601332783699036,0.6000000238418579,0.6213365197181702 +42,0.7142857313156128,0.5537526607513428,0.6000000238418579,0.615549623966217 +43,0.7142857313156128,0.569563627243042,0.6333333253860474,0.6171980500221252 +44,0.6857143044471741,0.5737605690956116,0.6000000238418579,0.6130236387252808 +45,0.7285714149475098,0.5946474075317383,0.6333333253860474,0.613156259059906 +46,0.7428571581840515,0.5049068927764893,0.6333333253860474,0.6069285869598389 +47,0.7285714149475098,0.5460419654846191,0.6000000238418579,0.6154488921165466 +48,0.7571428418159485,0.5346418619155884,0.6000000238418579,0.6136325001716614 +49,0.7428571581840515,0.5366268157958984,0.6000000238418579,0.6153213381767273 +50,0.7142857313156128,0.5574082136154175,0.6000000238418579,0.6128180027008057 +51,0.7571428418159485,0.5277009606361389,0.6333333253860474,0.6098411679267883 diff --git a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log index a76d35e..541855e 100644 --- a/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log +++ b/logs/imdb_model2_mlp_9.log @@ -1,81 +1,101 @@ epoch,acc,loss,val_acc,val_loss -0,0.4285714328289032,0.7016264200210571,0.5,0.6805540919303894 -1,0.5142857432365417,0.7004365921020508,0.5333333611488342,0.673122763633728 -2,0.6285714507102966,0.659683883190155,0.5333333611488342,0.6728394627571106 -3,0.5857142806053162,0.6670846939086914,0.5666666626930237,0.66733717918396 -4,0.5857142806053162,0.6697160005569458,0.5666666626930237,0.6636950373649597 -5,0.6000000238418579,0.6463307738304138,0.6000000238418579,0.6551560163497925 -6,0.6285714507102966,0.6723317503929138,0.6666666865348816,0.6523845791816711 -7,0.6142857074737549,0.6598004102706909,0.699999988079071,0.6474529504776001 -8,0.6000000238418579,0.6616008281707764,0.699999988079071,0.6433619260787964 -9,0.7285714149475098,0.6293016672134399,0.7333333492279053,0.6331322193145752 -10,0.6857143044471741,0.6146317720413208,0.7333333492279053,0.6310235857963562 -11,0.6428571343421936,0.6245951056480408,0.6333333253860474,0.6232808232307434 -12,0.7285714149475098,0.6471548080444336,0.6666666865348816,0.6203639507293701 -13,0.6428571343421936,0.6277396082878113,0.7333333492279053,0.6184256672859192 -14,0.6857143044471741,0.6098326444625854,0.7333333492279053,0.6091620326042175 -15,0.7142857313156128,0.6371685862541199,0.7333333492279053,0.6095433831214905 -16,0.6571428775787354,0.6324229836463928,0.7333333492279053,0.5970665216445923 -17,0.6428571343421936,0.6109034419059753,0.699999988079071,0.5903723239898682 -18,0.6571428775787354,0.6039682030677795,0.699999988079071,0.5881001949310303 -19,0.6857143044471741,0.6041842103004456,0.7333333492279053,0.5844427943229675 -20,0.7142857313156128,0.5783839821815491,0.7333333492279053,0.5763997435569763 -21,0.699999988079071,0.591020941734314,0.7333333492279053,0.5774649381637573 -22,0.7428571581840515,0.5953509211540222,0.699999988079071,0.572405219078064 -23,0.6428571343421936,0.5814296007156372,0.699999988079071,0.56685870885849 -24,0.6857143044471741,0.6081064939498901,0.699999988079071,0.572791337966919 -25,0.699999988079071,0.6120529770851135,0.7333333492279053,0.5569896697998047 -26,0.7142857313156128,0.5775588154792786,0.699999988079071,0.5475650429725647 -27,0.7714285850524902,0.5588387250900269,0.7333333492279053,0.5424559712409973 -28,0.7428571581840515,0.5656088590621948,0.7333333492279053,0.5294283628463745 -29,0.7285714149475098,0.5562855005264282,0.7333333492279053,0.5401715636253357 -30,0.7857142686843872,0.51934415102005,0.7333333492279053,0.5230486392974854 -31,0.7428571581840515,0.5450546145439148,0.7333333492279053,0.5155746340751648 -32,0.7571428418159485,0.5522570013999939,0.7333333492279053,0.5260934233665466 -33,0.8142856955528259,0.5401697158813477,0.7666666507720947,0.5098159909248352 -34,0.800000011920929,0.5418713092803955,0.7666666507720947,0.5064862966537476 -35,0.800000011920929,0.5823748111724854,0.800000011920929,0.5058448910713196 -36,0.8428571224212646,0.5441785454750061,0.7666666507720947,0.4952688217163086 -37,0.8428571224212646,0.49010947346687317,0.7666666507720947,0.48777472972869873 -38,0.800000011920929,0.4999350309371948,0.7666666507720947,0.4998880922794342 -39,0.7571428418159485,0.5008710622787476,0.7666666507720947,0.48107224702835083 -40,0.800000011920929,0.5040972232818604,0.800000011920929,0.4738801121711731 -41,0.7714285850524902,0.5135973691940308,0.800000011920929,0.48707303404808044 -42,0.800000011920929,0.45259568095207214,0.800000011920929,0.4782698452472687 -43,0.8428571224212646,0.46692073345184326,0.800000011920929,0.4613445997238159 -44,0.8142856955528259,0.5113503336906433,0.800000011920929,0.4484953284263611 -45,0.7857142686843872,0.47707676887512207,0.800000011920929,0.4686664640903473 -46,0.8285714387893677,0.46471261978149414,0.800000011920929,0.44274333119392395 -47,0.8142856955528259,0.45893746614456177,0.800000011920929,0.44759485125541687 -48,0.8571428656578064,0.45081114768981934,0.800000011920929,0.4330193102359772 -49,0.7714285850524902,0.4875996708869934,0.800000011920929,0.4516359865665436 -50,0.8285714387893677,0.4865187406539917,0.8333333134651184,0.4265669584274292 -51,0.8285714387893677,0.4774653911590576,0.7666666507720947,0.4561677873134613 -52,0.8142856955528259,0.4763886630535126,0.800000011920929,0.4154636561870575 -53,0.8285714387893677,0.44643643498420715,0.800000011920929,0.4147930145263672 -54,0.8428571224212646,0.42695677280426025,0.800000011920929,0.4108729362487793 -55,0.8285714387893677,0.4327614903450012,0.800000011920929,0.4010864496231079 -56,0.8428571224212646,0.4502446949481964,0.800000011920929,0.40737348794937134 -57,0.8285714387893677,0.44718682765960693,0.800000011920929,0.39528751373291016 -58,0.8999999761581421,0.3805624842643738,0.800000011920929,0.39595872163772583 -59,0.8142856955528259,0.40194055438041687,0.800000011920929,0.41492053866386414 -60,0.8428571224212646,0.39548853039741516,0.800000011920929,0.3937239646911621 -61,0.8428571224212646,0.3543522357940674,0.7666666507720947,0.4500727653503418 -62,0.800000011920929,0.38233697414398193,0.800000011920929,0.3875177502632141 -63,0.8142856955528259,0.38054370880126953,0.800000011920929,0.4089045226573944 -64,0.8428571224212646,0.4083065688610077,0.800000011920929,0.38408881425857544 -65,0.8285714387893677,0.3922334909439087,0.800000011920929,0.4071909487247467 -66,0.8571428656578064,0.3875272870063782,0.800000011920929,0.37895438075065613 -67,0.8857142925262451,0.3548952043056488,0.800000011920929,0.4202457070350647 -68,0.8285714387893677,0.4289672374725342,0.800000011920929,0.3842262327671051 -69,0.800000011920929,0.4254842698574066,0.800000011920929,0.430513471364975 -70,0.8285714387893677,0.4039224684238434,0.8333333134651184,0.36190065741539 -71,0.8428571224212646,0.37446093559265137,0.800000011920929,0.37436091899871826 -72,0.8428571224212646,0.3388216197490692,0.800000011920929,0.36854684352874756 -73,0.8999999761581421,0.3313564956188202,0.800000011920929,0.3742331266403198 -74,0.8142856955528259,0.3232550323009491,0.800000011920929,0.3509472608566284 -75,0.8857142925262451,0.32069191336631775,0.800000011920929,0.3813706338405609 -76,0.8428571224212646,0.31552544236183167,0.800000011920929,0.367133766412735 -77,0.8285714387893677,0.34134817123413086,0.800000011920929,0.37680041790008545 -78,0.8714285492897034,0.2930099368095398,0.800000011920929,0.36697426438331604 -79,0.8999999761581421,0.29883044958114624,0.7666666507720947,0.3563176989555359 +0,0.5071428418159485,0.6974853277206421,0.5,0.6957487463951111 +1,0.5428571701049805,0.6983017325401306,0.4333333373069763,0.6964403390884399 +2,0.5714285969734192,0.689961314201355,0.4333333373069763,0.6933006048202515 +3,0.6142857074737549,0.6718219518661499,0.4333333373069763,0.6893347501754761 +4,0.5,0.688217282295227,0.46666666865348816,0.6872081756591797 +5,0.5571428537368774,0.6774685382843018,0.5333333611488342,0.6810255646705627 +6,0.5857142806053162,0.7045061588287354,0.5333333611488342,0.6836128234863281 +7,0.6428571343421936,0.6732020974159241,0.5,0.682327389717102 +8,0.5857142806053162,0.6803260445594788,0.5333333611488342,0.6802196502685547 +9,0.6142857074737549,0.6679331660270691,0.5666666626930237,0.675551176071167 +10,0.6142857074737549,0.6689667701721191,0.5333333611488342,0.6754759550094604 +11,0.6000000238418579,0.676087498664856,0.5333333611488342,0.6749539971351624 +12,0.6428571343421936,0.6578295826911926,0.5666666626930237,0.6690844297409058 +13,0.5714285969734192,0.6845667958259583,0.5666666626930237,0.6698295474052429 +14,0.6571428775787354,0.6714246273040771,0.6333333253860474,0.6666648983955383 +15,0.5857142806053162,0.6726455688476562,0.5666666626930237,0.6648647785186768 +16,0.6285714507102966,0.6899728775024414,0.6000000238418579,0.6657571196556091 +17,0.5857142806053162,0.6622228622436523,0.6000000238418579,0.663671612739563 +18,0.6142857074737549,0.6653459668159485,0.6000000238418579,0.6638551354408264 +19,0.6142857074737549,0.6467922329902649,0.5666666626930237,0.6628644466400146 +20,0.5857142806053162,0.6656491160392761,0.5333333611488342,0.6648037433624268 +21,0.5857142806053162,0.6613138914108276,0.5666666626930237,0.6625956296920776 +22,0.6428571343421936,0.6552305221557617,0.5666666626930237,0.6597360968589783 +23,0.6714285612106323,0.6578840613365173,0.5333333611488342,0.6575504541397095 +24,0.5857142806053162,0.664326012134552,0.5666666626930237,0.6563904285430908 +25,0.6142857074737549,0.6415478587150574,0.6333333253860474,0.6561431884765625 +26,0.6571428775787354,0.6590265035629272,0.5666666626930237,0.652356743812561 +27,0.6714285612106323,0.6423799991607666,0.6000000238418579,0.6471624970436096 +28,0.6000000238418579,0.6472173929214478,0.5666666626930237,0.6476873755455017 +29,0.6857143044471741,0.6422570943832397,0.6000000238418579,0.6449968814849854 +30,0.6571428775787354,0.6426666378974915,0.6000000238418579,0.6441643834114075 +31,0.6857143044471741,0.6209534406661987,0.6000000238418579,0.639872133731842 +32,0.6142857074737549,0.6443748474121094,0.6666666865348816,0.637787938117981 +33,0.699999988079071,0.6273664832115173,0.6000000238418579,0.6360005736351013 +34,0.5714285969734192,0.6434085965156555,0.6333333253860474,0.6306177973747253 +35,0.7285714149475098,0.6439530253410339,0.6000000238418579,0.6353069543838501 +36,0.6142857074737549,0.642741858959198,0.6000000238418579,0.6279062032699585 +37,0.6428571343421936,0.6234239339828491,0.6000000238418579,0.6285974383354187 +38,0.6571428775787354,0.6012990474700928,0.6000000238418579,0.6269282102584839 +39,0.6857143044471741,0.5984897613525391,0.6000000238418579,0.6240870952606201 +40,0.7428571581840515,0.6153362393379211,0.6333333253860474,0.6187589764595032 +41,0.6571428775787354,0.6348616480827332,0.6333333253860474,0.6195529699325562 +42,0.6142857074737549,0.6251232624053955,0.6666666865348816,0.6174026727676392 +43,0.8142856955528259,0.5528130531311035,0.6333333253860474,0.6127184629440308 +44,0.7142857313156128,0.5956155061721802,0.6333333253860474,0.6101261377334595 +45,0.7142857313156128,0.5884371995925903,0.6333333253860474,0.6083199381828308 +46,0.699999988079071,0.59648597240448,0.6333333253860474,0.5953779816627502 +47,0.6857143044471741,0.5875318646430969,0.6666666865348816,0.5967279672622681 +48,0.699999988079071,0.5951555967330933,0.6666666865348816,0.5934048891067505 +49,0.699999988079071,0.6072267889976501,0.6333333253860474,0.5898736715316772 +50,0.6857143044471741,0.5796384811401367,0.699999988079071,0.5810565948486328 +51,0.7571428418159485,0.5598885416984558,0.6666666865348816,0.5758945941925049 +52,0.699999988079071,0.5539497137069702,0.699999988079071,0.5737993717193604 +53,0.6714285612106323,0.5868124961853027,0.699999988079071,0.5691825151443481 +54,0.7857142686843872,0.5437602996826172,0.699999988079071,0.5618085265159607 +55,0.7285714149475098,0.5756616592407227,0.699999988079071,0.5610469579696655 +56,0.7285714149475098,0.5301055312156677,0.699999988079071,0.5620046854019165 +57,0.6285714507102966,0.5612253546714783,0.699999988079071,0.5533373951911926 +58,0.8142856955528259,0.5568429231643677,0.699999988079071,0.5512386560440063 +59,0.800000011920929,0.5020170211791992,0.6666666865348816,0.5538811087608337 +60,0.6857143044471741,0.5662756562232971,0.6666666865348816,0.5383121371269226 +61,0.7285714149475098,0.5539706945419312,0.7333333492279053,0.5421131253242493 +62,0.800000011920929,0.5384708046913147,0.7333333492279053,0.5297457575798035 +63,0.800000011920929,0.5193928480148315,0.7333333492279053,0.5253468155860901 +64,0.7428571581840515,0.5230554342269897,0.7333333492279053,0.5174258947372437 +65,0.7857142686843872,0.5073073506355286,0.7666666507720947,0.5261403918266296 +66,0.7857142686843872,0.49044129252433777,0.7333333492279053,0.5273841023445129 +67,0.7142857313156128,0.5310214161872864,0.7333333492279053,0.5116320252418518 +68,0.7857142686843872,0.48880091309547424,0.7333333492279053,0.5081385970115662 +69,0.7428571581840515,0.5325554609298706,0.7333333492279053,0.5080645084381104 +70,0.7285714149475098,0.5236575603485107,0.7333333492279053,0.49755746126174927 +71,0.7714285850524902,0.5039733052253723,0.7333333492279053,0.49618467688560486 +72,0.7285714149475098,0.491696834564209,0.7666666507720947,0.4937778413295746 +73,0.800000011920929,0.4999483525753021,0.699999988079071,0.4921169877052307 +74,0.7714285850524902,0.46787533164024353,0.699999988079071,0.48906001448631287 +75,0.800000011920929,0.46889033913612366,0.7666666507720947,0.4969820976257324 +76,0.7857142686843872,0.4966977834701538,0.7333333492279053,0.48166152834892273 +77,0.7571428418159485,0.5476958155632019,0.7333333492279053,0.5024157762527466 +78,0.7571428418159485,0.47614234685897827,0.7333333492279053,0.4800735414028168 +79,0.7714285850524902,0.4713023006916046,0.7666666507720947,0.4882611930370331 +80,0.8285714387893677,0.45304733514785767,0.7333333492279053,0.4943811297416687 +81,0.800000011920929,0.47830700874328613,0.7333333492279053,0.4849501848220825 +82,0.7571428418159485,0.47829747200012207,0.7666666507720947,0.47745761275291443 +83,0.7857142686843872,0.5015236139297485,0.7333333492279053,0.4800344407558441 +84,0.7571428418159485,0.48261478543281555,0.7333333492279053,0.5006468892097473 +85,0.800000011920929,0.45716890692710876,0.7333333492279053,0.4734269678592682 +86,0.7142857313156128,0.5075653791427612,0.7666666507720947,0.4684976041316986 +87,0.7285714149475098,0.45285385847091675,0.7666666507720947,0.45953303575515747 +88,0.7714285850524902,0.43906426429748535,0.699999988079071,0.4944270849227905 +89,0.7428571581840515,0.48690900206565857,0.7666666507720947,0.4520549476146698 +90,0.8142856955528259,0.46220508217811584,0.7333333492279053,0.46905583143234253 +91,0.7714285850524902,0.4327700436115265,0.699999988079071,0.4784477651119232 +92,0.7571428418159485,0.4331287145614624,0.7333333492279053,0.47210410237312317 +93,0.7857142686843872,0.4375271201133728,0.7666666507720947,0.46330690383911133 +94,0.7857142686843872,0.4054163992404938,0.7666666507720947,0.4510647654533386 +95,0.7857142686843872,0.43044254183769226,0.7666666507720947,0.4467782974243164 +96,0.8142856955528259,0.4079056680202484,0.7666666507720947,0.4770556092262268 +97,0.8142856955528259,0.42860904335975647,0.7666666507720947,0.4268171191215515 +98,0.7285714149475098,0.4532410502433777,0.7666666507720947,0.46264952421188354 +99,0.7714285850524902,0.43646547198295593,0.800000011920929,0.45556947588920593 diff --git a/model/model1.py b/model/model1.py index 9646db4..11b3d53 100644 --- a/model/model1.py +++ b/model/model1.py @@ -144,35 +144,9 @@ def lstm_model(): return model -def lstm_stateful(): - data_dim = 256 - timesteps = 8 - num_classes = 1 - batch_size = 31 - - # Expected input batch shape: (batch_size, timesteps, data_dim) - # Note that we have to provide the full batch_input_shape since the network is stateful. - # the sample of index i in batch k is the follow-up for the sample i in batch k-1. +def lstm_mul_model(vocab_size): model = Sequential() - model.add(Embedding(89483, 256, input_length=800)) - model.add(LSTM(128, return_sequences=True, stateful=True, - batch_input_shape=(batch_size, timesteps, data_dim))) - model.add(LSTM(128, return_sequences=True, stateful=True)) - model.add(LSTM(128, stateful=True)) - model.add(Dense(128, activation='relu')) - model.add(Dense(64, activation='relu')) - model.add(Dropout(0.2)) - model.add(Dense(32, activation='relu')) - model.add(Dense(num_classes, activation='sigmoid')) - model.compile(loss='binary_crossentropy', - optimizer='adam', - metrics=['accuracy']) - return model - - -def lstm_mul_model(): - model = Sequential() - model.add(Embedding(89483, 256, input_length=800)) + model.add(Embedding(vocab_size, 256, input_length=800)) model.add(LSTM(256, dropout=0.2)) model.add(Dense(512, activation='relu')) model.add(Dropout(0.2)) diff --git a/model_use.py b/model_use.py index 79bb0d8..2083b84 100644 --- a/model_use.py +++ b/model_use.py @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ import numpy as np from util.util import cal_err_ratio from util.data_load import generate_imdb_model2_data +from util.data_process import get_imdb_vocab_size # use this model test model1&model2 or generate the result @@ -23,10 +24,6 @@ def model_use(i): model2.load_weights(filepath) results = model2.predict(x_test) label = np.argmax(results, axis=1).astype('int') - print("pred:") - print(label) - print("true:") - print(y_test) cal_err_ratio(file_name='test', label=label, y_test=y_test) diff --git a/result/test_classify_result_154493.txt b/result/test_classify_result_154494.txt similarity index 50% rename from result/test_classify_result_154493.txt rename to result/test_classify_result_154494.txt index 8408e4b..55db776 100644 --- a/result/test_classify_result_154493.txt +++ b/result/test_classify_result_154494.txt @@ -1,63 +1,63 @@ -pred_result:[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] +pred_result:[1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.5 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1] +err_ratio:0.47 +pred_result:[1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 + 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.54 -pred_result:[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1] +err_ratio:0.53 +pred_result:[1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 + 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 + 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.49 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1] +err_ratio:0.51 +pred_result:[0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 + 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.52 -pred_result:[1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1] +err_ratio:0.48 +pred_result:[0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 + 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.47 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 - 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.48 +pred_result:[1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 + 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.45 -pred_result:[1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0] +err_ratio:0.52 +pred_result:[1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 + 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.48 -pred_result:[1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.44 +pred_result:[1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.54 -pred_result:[1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.5 +pred_result:[1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 + 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 + 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.53 +err_ratio:0.5 diff --git a/result/train_classify_result_154493.txt b/result/train_classify_result_154494.txt similarity index 56% rename from result/train_classify_result_154493.txt rename to result/train_classify_result_154494.txt index b011bb2..ad42006 100644 --- a/result/train_classify_result_154493.txt +++ b/result/train_classify_result_154494.txt @@ -5,59 +5,59 @@ true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] err_ratio:0.5 -pred_result:[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] +pred_result:[0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 + 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.5 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.48 +pred_result:[0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 + 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 + 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.48 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.49 +pred_result:[0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.47 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0] +err_ratio:0.44 +pred_result:[0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 + 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.49 -pred_result:[0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 - 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1] +err_ratio:0.41 +pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.42 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.45 +pred_result:[0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 + 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 + 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.36 -pred_result:[0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1] +err_ratio:0.42 +pred_result:[1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.31 -pred_result:[0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 - 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0] +err_ratio:0.37 +pred_result:[1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 + 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0] true_result:[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] -err_ratio:0.29 +err_ratio:0.36 diff --git a/use_all_data.py b/use_all_data.py new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e39cede --- /dev/null +++ b/use_all_data.py @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +from __future__ import print_function +from keras.callbacks import ModelCheckpoint, EarlyStopping, CSVLogger +from util import data_process +from util.util import cal_err_ratio_only +from model.model1 import lstm_mul_model + + +def model1(): + results_flag = True + train_file = "./data/part_data_all/all_train.txt" + test_file = "./data/part_data_all/all_test.txt" + # train model1 + monitor = 'val_acc' + filepath = "./modfile/model1file/all.lstm.best_model.h5" + check_pointer = ModelCheckpoint(filepath=filepath, monitor=monitor, verbose=1, + save_best_only=True, save_weights_only=True) + early_stopping = EarlyStopping(patience=3) + csv_logger = CSVLogger('logs/all_imdb_model2_mlp.log') + Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = data_process.get_imdb_part_data(raw_file=train_file) + vocab_size = data_process.get_imdb_vocab_size(train_file) + model = lstm_mul_model(vocab_size=vocab_size) + # model.fit(Xtrain, ytrain, batch_size=32, epochs=50, validation_data=(Xtest, ytest), verbose=1, shuffle=True, + # callbacks=[check_pointer, early_stopping, csv_logger]) + if results_flag: + print('test the model ...') + X, y = data_process.get_imdb_test_data(test_file) + vocab_size = data_process.get_imdb_vocab_size(train_file) + lstm_model = lstm_mul_model(vocab_size) + lstm_model.load_weights(filepath) + results = lstm_model.predict_classes(X) + cal_err_ratio_only(label=results, y_test=y) + print('***** End Model1 Train *****') + + +if __name__ == '__main__': + model1() diff --git a/util/data_load.py b/util/data_load.py index 4357772..07ce0de 100644 --- a/util/data_load.py +++ b/util/data_load.py @@ -3,10 +3,10 @@ import numpy as np from keras.utils import np_utils from keras import backend as K -import codecs from util import data_process from model.model1 import lstm_mul_model from sklearn.utils import shuffle +from util.data_process import get_imdb_vocab_size import os K.set_image_dim_ordering('th') @@ -44,10 +44,9 @@ def load_all_data2(data_path): train_dataframe = pd.read_csv(data_path, header=0) # print(train_dataframe) total_count = train_dataframe.shape[0] - train_level = int(total_count * 1.0) train_dataset = train_dataframe.values - x_train = train_dataset[0:train_level, 0:-1].astype('float') - y_train = train_dataset[0:train_level, -1].astype('int') + x_train = train_dataset[0:total_count, 0:-1].astype('float') + y_train = train_dataset[0:total_count, -1].astype('int') y_train = np_utils.to_categorical(y_train, num_classes=2) print('X train shape:', x_train.shape) print('y train shape:', y_train.shape) @@ -114,6 +113,10 @@ def load_all_data(train_file): # save the error dataset depends on the model result and the truth label def make_err_dataset(result_path, label, x_test, y_test): + print("pred:", end='') + print(label) + print("true:", end='') + print(y_test) count = 0 err_data_list = [] for i in label: @@ -127,18 +130,17 @@ def make_err_dataset(result_path, label, x_test, y_test): def generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file, test_file, result_path, count): labels = [] - model = lstm_mul_model() x_test, y_test = data_process.get_imdb_test_data(raw_file=test_file) for i in range(1, count+1): - yi_test = generate_imdb_model2(model_name=model_file + str(i) + ".h5", lstm_model=model, x_test=x_test, - line_count=100) + yi_test = generate_imdb_model2(model_name=model_file + str(i) + ".h5", x_test=x_test, + line_count=100, train_file="./data/part_data_all/train_" + str(i) + ".txt") print("yi_test len: " + str(len(yi_test))) if i == 1: print("----------") z_data = yi_test else: z_data = np.c_[z_data, yi_test] - labels.append("test" + str(i+1)) + labels.append("test" + str(i)) print(len(y_test)) labels.append("test") z_data = np.c_[z_data, y_test] @@ -149,21 +151,20 @@ def generate_imdb_model2_data(model_file, test_file, result_path, count): # generate the model labels from model1 result -def generate_imdb_model2(model_name, lstm_model, x_test, line_count): +def generate_imdb_model2(model_name, x_test, line_count, train_file): if not os.path.exists(model_name): print(model_name) print("file not found!") # if file not exists, return [0]*30 return np.array([0] * line_count) + vocab_size = get_imdb_vocab_size(train_file) + lstm_model = lstm_mul_model(vocab_size) lstm_model.load_weights(model_name) # results = lstm_model.predict(x_test) results = lstm_model.predict_classes(x_test) - print(results) return results # make_model2_dataset(result_path='./err_data/iris_1_error_data.csv', label=label, x_test=x_test, y_test=y_test) if __name__ == '__main__': - # load_data1(data_path='../data/') - # load_data2(data_path='../data/model2_data/iris_2_data.csv') load_all_data() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/util/data_process.py b/util/data_process.py index 6d1b607..5bdede3 100644 --- a/util/data_process.py +++ b/util/data_process.py @@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ def get_imdb_part_data(raw_file): tokenizer = Tokenizer() tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) # one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') - # word_index = tokenizer.word_index - # sourcevocabsize = len(word_index) + word_index = tokenizer.word_index + vocab_size = len(word_index) sequences = tokenizer.texts_to_sequences(seq) # 此处设置每个句子最长不超过 800 final_sequences = sequence.pad_sequences(sequences, maxlen=800) @@ -54,10 +54,27 @@ def get_imdb_part_data(raw_file): y = label # 划分测试集和训练集 Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2) - print("dataset created!") + print("train data set created!") return Xtrain, Xtest, ytrain, ytest +# 获取词最大单词长度 +def get_imdb_vocab_size(raw_file): + fr = open(raw_file, 'r', encoding='utf8') + content = [] + for line in fr: + line = line.split('@@@') + content.append(line[0]) + + # 获取词索引 + tokenizer = Tokenizer() + tokenizer.fit_on_texts(content) + # one_hot_results = tokenizer.texts_to_matrix(content, mode='binary') + word_index = tokenizer.word_index + vocab_size = len(word_index) + return vocab_size + + def get_imdb_test_data(raw_file): fr = open(raw_file, 'r', encoding='utf8') content = [] @@ -94,12 +111,12 @@ def get_imdb_test_data(raw_file): # 转换为numpy类型 label = np.array(label) - # buneng随机打乱数据 + # 不能随机打乱数据，否则会导致预测结果不一致 # indices = np.random.permutation(len(final_sequences)) X = final_sequences y = label # 划分测试集和训练集 - print("testdata created!") + print("test data created!") return X, y diff --git a/util/rawdata_process.py b/util/rawdata_process.py index e1e5a53..de31928 100644 --- a/util/rawdata_process.py +++ b/util/rawdata_process.py @@ -1,50 +1,76 @@ # -*- encoding:utf-8 -*- -import json -import codecs -import pandas as pd -import os # imdb genarate train data def generate_imdb_train_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, part, count): for i in range(part): - # out_pos_file = "../data/part_data/train_pos_" + str(i) + ".txt" - # out_neg_file = "../data/part_data/train_neg_" + str(i) + ".txt" out_all_file = "../data/part_data_all/train_" + str(i) + ".txt" - # fw1 = open(out_pos_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - # fw2 = open(out_neg_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') fw = open(out_all_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') with open(in_pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: pos_line = f.readlines()[count * i:count * (i + 1)] with open(in_neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: neg_line = f.readlines()[count * i:count * (i + 1)] for k in range(len(pos_line)): - fw.write(pos_line[k].rstrip('\n')+'@@@1\n') - fw.write(neg_line[k].rstrip('\n')+'@@@0\n') - print("data "+str(i)+" processed!") + fw.write(pos_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@1\n') + fw.write(neg_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@0\n') + print("data " + str(i) + " processed!") return # imdb generate test data -def generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, part, count): +def generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, start_line, part, count): for i in range(part): - # out_pos_file = "../data/part_data/test_pos_" + str(i) + ".txt" - # out_neg_file = "../data/part_data/test_neg_" + str(i) + ".txt" - # fw1 = open(out_pos_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') - # fw2 = open(out_neg_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') out_all_file = "../data/part_data_all/test_" + str(i) + ".txt" fw = open(out_all_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') with open(in_pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - pos_line = f.readlines()[2500+count * i:2500+count * (i + 1)] + pos_line = f.readlines()[start_line + count * i:start_line + count * (i + 1)] + with open(in_neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: + neg_line = f.readlines()[start_line + count * i:start_line + count * (i + 1)] + for k in range(len(neg_line)): + fw.write(pos_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@1\n') + fw.write(neg_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@0\n') + print("data " + str(i) + " processed!") + return + + +# imdb genarate train data +def generate_imdb_all_train_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, part, count): + for i in range(part): + out_all_file = "../data/part_data_all/all_train.txt" + fw = open(out_all_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') + with open(in_pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: + pos_line = f.readlines()[count * i:count * (i + 1)] + with open(in_neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: + neg_line = f.readlines()[count * i:count * (i + 1)] + for k in range(len(pos_line)): + fw.write(pos_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@1\n') + fw.write(neg_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@0\n') + print("data " + str(i) + " processed!") + return + + +# imdb generate test data +def generate_imdb_all_test_data(in_pos_file, in_neg_file, start_line, part, count): + for i in range(part): + out_all_file = "../data/part_data_all/all_test.txt" + fw = open(out_all_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') + with open(in_pos_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: + pos_line = f.readlines()[start_line + count * i:start_line + count * (i + 1)] with open(in_neg_file, 'r', encoding='utf8')as f: - neg_line = f.readlines()[2500+count * i:2500+count * (i + 1)] + neg_line = f.readlines()[start_line + count * i:start_line + count * (i + 1)] for k in range(len(neg_line)): fw.write(pos_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@1\n') fw.write(neg_line[k].rstrip('\n') + '@@@0\n') - print("data "+str(i)+" processed!") + print("data " + str(i) + " processed!") return if __name__ == '__main__': - generate_imdb_train_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=10, count=250) - generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=2, count=50) + # generate_imdb_train_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=10, + # count=150) + # generate_imdb_test_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', + # start_line=1500, part=2, count=50) + generate_imdb_all_train_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', part=1, + count=1500) + generate_imdb_all_test_data(in_pos_file='../data/train_pos_all.txt', in_neg_file='../data/train_neg_all.txt', + start_line=1500, part=1, count=50) diff --git a/util/util.py b/util/util.py index 6db2f85..8445620 100644 --- a/util/util.py +++ b/util/util.py @@ -41,15 +41,29 @@ def cal_err_ratio(file_name, label, y_test): err_count += 1 sum_count += 1 err_ratio = float(err_count) / float(sum_count) - print(err_count) - print(sum_count) - print(err_ratio) + print("the error ratio: "+str(err_ratio)) fw.write("pred_result:"+str(label)+'\n') fw.write("true_result:"+str(y_test)+'\n') fw.write("err_ratio:"+str(err_ratio)+'\n') fw.close() +# calculate the error ratio of model +def cal_err_ratio_only(label, y_test): + err_count = 0 + sum_count = 0 + for i in label: + if i != y_test[sum_count]: + err_count += 1 + sum_count += 1 + err_ratio = float(err_count) / float(sum_count) + print("pred:", end='') + print(label) + print("true:", end='') + print(y_test) + print("the error ratio: "+str(err_ratio)) + + def test(): for i in range(0, 10): yi_test = np.array([0, 1, 2, 3])